the Progress of Divine Revelation. At the close I intimated
a hope of reviewing the department of thought which has
arisen from Scripture studies moulded by influences such
as a review of the kind helps us to discover.

In the present work I have endeavoured to follow certain
lines of Theological thought as far as the period of the
Reformation, leaving subsequent developments for enquiry
in a future volume.
In most cases references are made to the writings of
Authors described ; but in others notice is taken only of
modern publications, where the reader may find copious
and minute citations of authorities.
My endeavour has been simply to furnish young Students
with an elementary introduction to a most important and
interesting field of literature.

CONTENTS.
PAGE

INTRODUCTION

PART I.
From the Apostolic to the Nicene Perz'od.

A.D.

100-325.

CHAP.

I.

II.
III.

DISTINGUISHED CHURCH TEACHERS

17

HERETICAL DOGMAS

52

.

LINES OF GENERALLY ACKNOWLEDGED CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE

64

PART II.
From the Council of Nicma to the Development of
Systematic Theology. A.D. 325-730.
I.

85

FORMATIVE INFLUENCES

II.

THEOLOGICAL RESULTS

III.

THEOLOGTCAL RESULTS

â&#x20AC;¢

(continued)

103

1 34

PART III.
From the Development of Systematic Theology to the Full
Development of Scholasticism. A.D. 730-1060.
I.

EASTERN DIVINES

II.

\VESTERN DIVINES

Contents.

Vlll

PART IV.
From the Full Development of -Scholasticism to the
Reformation. A.D. 106o-i518.
PAGE

CHAP.

I.

SCHOLASTIC DIVINITY.

1000-1224. .

213

II.

SCHOLASTIC DIVINITY (continued).

106o-1224.

III.

SCHOLASTIC DIVINITY (continued).

106o-1224.

241

IV.

SCHOLASTIC DIVINITY (continued).

1224-1436.

256

V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.

POPULAR THEOLOGY.
MYSTICISM.

600-1500.

1097-1500.

PREPARATION FOR REFORM.
GENERAL REVIEW.

233

289
307

1350-1500..

200-1500.

324
343

PART V.
From the Commencement of the Reformation in Germany
under Luther to the Conclusion of z't in England under
the Reign of Elizabeth. A.D. 1518-156o.
I.
II,

REFORMED THEOLOGY IN GERMANY

365

REFORMED THEOLOGY IN SWITZERLAND

384

III.

REFORMED THEOLOGY IN FRANCE AND SCOTLAND

390

IV.

REFORMED THEOLOGY IN ITALY

414

v.

REFORMED THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND

427

CONCLUSION

447

HISTORICAL THEOLOGY.

INTRODUCTION.

I

N the present volume an attempt is made to trace the

development of Dogmatic Theology.
Let me state what is meant by Dogmatic Theology.
I distinguish it from Revelation on the one hand, and
from Religion on the other. This distinction is of prime
importance.
Theology is drawn from Revelation, and the human
mind is a factor in the process. That from which a science
is derived cannot be identical with the science itself;
and, as it will appear that the process of forming theological conclusions is complicated, we shall find that the
possibilities and probabilities of mistake are numerous.
Even wtre the logical manipulation faultless, a distinction ought to be recognized between the Divine material
and the result of its human handling ; but the logical
manipulation never has been faultless, and never will be.
I do not bel'ieve that God's truth can ever be systematically expressed in words of human collocation, so that
B

2

Introduction.

those words shall certainly contain the whole of the
matter of which they treat, and nothing else. In drawing
water out of the wells of salvation, and pouring it into
theological cisterns, some of it gets spilt; also the
buckets give a tinge and a taste to the element which it
had not when lying in the calm depths of the Holy
Spring.
The fact of liability to error in reasoning is a cogent
consideration why we should not confound our theology
with God's Word; and without the distinction I do not
see how we can properly adjust the relation between
unchangeable truth revealed in Scripture and varieties
of opinion in the Christian Church.
Equally important is the distinction between Theology
and Religion, whether we regard it as taught in the
Divine Book, or as experienced in the human soul.
Theology has to do with it in both respects ; but it is as
distinguishable from the second as from the first. In
relation to religion, theology is analogous to physiology
and, biology, which form the philosophy of organic
structure and of organic life. Theology includes the
philosophy of consciousness, viewed in the light of
Divine revelation, and exemplified in the records of
Church history. It takes account of spiritual health and
spiritual disease, of the vis vitm in its stages of growth,
and in its liability to decline, from the first throb to
the last pulsation on this side eternity. Common sense
shows in a moment the distinction, as well as the connection, between theology and religion thus regardeq ;
and without the distinction no one can discern where
lies the true unity of Christ's Church, nor can any one
demonstrate that Christianity has been a success. For
theology has been changeful, and it takes a long time to

Introduction.

3

point out only a few of its revolutions. But Christ's
religion, living for eighteen hundred years under forms
of varying theology, has been substantially one and the
same; the same in its faith at the foot of the cross, the
same in its adoration on the steps of the throne, the
same in its beatific hope at the bottom of that ladder
which touches heaven.
The ground of the Church's unity exists in the sympathies of a common religious trust. Could one of us
converse with a Nicene or Media!val believer, there might
be some difficulty in understanding him at first ; but
getting below the crust of a metaphysical theology, as
well as below worship, discipline, and a!Sthetic predilections-when each came to speak to the other of God's
Fatherhood and Christ's redemption, and the Spirit's
indwelling, varieties would be harmonized, and men,
divided by ages and creeds, would clasp hands before the
one Cross and the one Mercy-Seat. No ground of
unity can be found except in a common trust in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
And the reconciliation of Church diversities in the
present day-of sect with sect, party with party, and
Christian with Christian - can only be accomplished
after the same manner.
Though regarded in distinction from revelation and
religion, theology be but a human science, it is based
upon Divine objects; the character of the Lord God, the
person of Jesus Christ, the grace which brings salvation,
the propitiatory sacrifice for our redemption, justification
by faith, and the new birth of the Spirit of God. These
should be to us dearer than our lives.
The scientific treatment of such matters is to some
persons a necessity. Of course the Positivist will say
B 2

4

Introduction.

that theology is an unscientific dream, a fanatical flight
into cloud-land, where nothing is grasped but thin air.
But in denying a place in human knowledge for theology, the Positivist also denies a place for religion, and
therefore puts himself beyond our notice. The Pietist,
with more plausibility, will ask, "What is the good of
scientific theology ? Religion is best by itself, philosophy
spoils it. What does one care about the opinions of
people hundreds of years ago? How are common folks
to understand wire-drawn
distinctions and interminable
I
wranglings ? Go to the Bible, and read that, and ask
God's Spirit to enlighten you, and what you know apply
to practice, and leave the rest." The mere Popularist
will follow, saying, "What is there attractive in this
science of which you talk ? What is there in it to lay
hold of the public mind ? It might do in the Middle
Ages ; it excited interest at the Reformation, and during
the Civil Wars,-but ours is a practical age; people don't
care a rush about metaphysical abstractions ; and your
endeavour to strike down certain dogmatic errors, as
you call them, is not worth powder and shot."
All I can say in reply is, that the spirit of such objections reaches to every kind of scientific inquiry-to all
but the practical business of life, and the most superficial
forms of knowledge ; indeed, to systematic studies of
every description. It must, however, be frankly confessed that for some people theology is not a necessity,
any more than astronomy or geology. They can gaze
on the stars without acquaintance with the Newtonian
theory ; and can walk on God's earth, and admire the
mountains, uninterested in the disputes of Vulcanists
and Neptunists. But all are not like them. A mind,
characterized by reflec~ive power, sagacity, and inquisi-

Introduction.

5

tiveness, will not rest content with crude, unconnected
notions. It must have things analyzed, sorted, arranged.
It must see how one truth squares with another, how
many parts make up a whole.Âˇ To such a mind, if it
care about religion, theology becomes indispensable ;
and as true spiritual religion makes its way in England,
the demand will increase.
The interests involved in the truths of Christianity will
always inspire a large measure of enthusiasm respecting
them. Goethe, no partial witness in the case, has said :
"The deepest subject in the history of the world and of
mankind, and that to which all others are subordinate, is
the conflict bet\yeen faith and unbelief." Assuredly it is.
Controversies at Constantinople at the Nicene era, or in
London and elsewhere at the Puritan epoch, may be
exhausted ; but not the interest felt in the Divine Christ,
and the redemption He has wrought for us. They have
a brightness lasting as the stars. The age when Pilate
asked, "What is truth?" was one of languid dilettante
scepticism, when luxury and splendour had enervated
humanity, and nothing moved the masses but appeals to
their passions. Afterwards, a voluptuous despair went
on screaming through Roman and Grecian halls," Let us
eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." Yet during those
centuries, full of antagonist influences, Christian theology
rose up, and spoke to the world with a vehemence which
startled it, and swept the intellect of Europe and the East
into its resistless current. Science, art, politics, may
compete with theology, and drive it out of the field here
and there; but it has a life and a power which will
enable it in the long run to hold its own.
Therefore the history of the development of Dogmatic
Theology is full of interest and importa~ce.

6

Introduction.

It gathers up the harvest of past ages. To the Greek
mind was assigned the task of elaborating doctrines concerning God, the Trinity, and the person of Christ; to
the Latin Church, doctrines concerning man, sin, and
grace ; and to the German Church, the doctrine of j ustification by faith ; to English theologians, the true unfolding of the new birth. In its true spirit, historical theology
is both conservative and reformatory. It accepts what
has endured. centuries of criticism, and does not reopen
for settle~nt controversies which time has closed.
Christendom, after all, has a settled faith in a Divine
Redeemer-in His propitiatory work, in salvation by
grace, in the power and presence of the Holy Ghost. All
Church creeds embody those doctrines. It is the business
of historical theology to point them out, to uncover their
foundations, to dwell on their influences.
The following are some advantages attendant on this
course of study.
1. It enables us clearly to distinguish between Divine
and human elements in theology. It dispels the illusion
that theologians of any school have drawn their opinions,
entirely and exclusively, from the fountain of God. It
throws light on the genesis of opinion. And we are
brought to see how metaphysics and logic, tradition
and Church authority, education, circumstances, and
intellectual idiosyncrasy, have had to do with forming
theological thought. In schemes of divinity many
questions are mooted which revelation has never settled
or even raised, though we do not wonder Âˇat their having
arisen. They are all curious, some interesting. They
have had a fascination for good men, who have
supposed them to involve important consequences;
but they are human questions about Divine things-

Introduction.

7

human in their origin and human in their end. I do
not say this because I attach little or no importance to
evangelical theology, round which such inquiries are
entwined. Quite the reverse. It is because I hold evangelical truth so dear, because I see in it the quickener
of spiritual life. But it appears to me of primary importance to distinguish between the pure Gospel and that
which has been mixed with it-to distinguish between
what constitutes the core of Christianity, and the curious
speculations woven into it, and by paring away encrustmentsr to bring out the lustre of the precious stones
which God has laid in the foundations of His own
Jerusalem.
2. In connecting the history of men with the history
of their opinions, it will appear how much religious life
has to do with theology: what an efficient factor it ishow the characteristic convictions of Augustine and
Martin Luther grew out o(the study of the Bible, under
the inspiration of their own experience. Of the first it
has been truly said, " From the depths of his own consciousness, he instinctively felt the dangers of P elagianism;
and he put forth his strength as God enabled him to
meet the evil;" and as to the second, everybody knows
how Luther's sense of sin educated him to receive the
doctrine of justification by faith. To connect principles
with the men who held them is not merely interesting,
but of practical value; for it assists in the understanding
of principles, in the development of their full significancy,
and in the elucidation of their moral and religious
influence. " By their fruits ye shall know them," is not
only a test of character, but a test of doctrines.
3. This branch of study leads to a correct theory of
development. Development may be true and precious.

8

Introduction.

The germinating power may come from God; Divine
seeds rooted in human intellects may grow and thrive ;
yet is the growth a human process, though starting from
a Divine origin, and continued under Divine culture. But
development may be of another kind. If the seeds be
taken from God's granary, the tillage may be bad and
the soil barren, and the plant may prove abortive, or
worse. Further, what is sown may be invented by man,
or supplied by Satan; or it may be (and this is most
commonb a mixture of seeds good and bad, gleaned
from above, or gathered from below, or reaped from
fields lying between. There may also be a blending of
husbandry, careless and careful, foolish and wise. There
may be a true development of Divine ideas, and a false
development of true ideas. History brings us into contact with the facts of doctrinal development, and it forces
upon us, in connection with it, the study of the Divine
ideal-the Revelation of God-that standard by which
developments are to be tried, and by which alone their
legitimacy can be determined.
4. Our inquiries will serve to impress upon us the
remembrance of what theologians crre so apt to forgetthat religion is encompassed with mystery-that, as
Butler says, Christianity is a scheme imperfectly understood ; that beyond the region of the known there lie
immense regions of the unknown ; that doctrines of
grace, illuminated as they are by Gospel lights, have
around them an immeasurable circle of darkness, in
which genius, hoping to soar upwards to the sun, sometimes altogether loses itself; that there are barriers Âˇto
inquiry, and limits to thought ; and that it is in vain for
us, in this present state of being, to beat against the bars
of our little cage. Some have tried to get out, and to

Introduction.

9

reach realms where they may gaze on mysteries ; eut the
only result, according to the pages of history, has been
like the scattering of a bird's feathers over the wires of
his tiny prison.
5. This method, too, will open to us what we would
call perspective in theology. All doctrines do not lie on
a plane surface ; they are not like Chinese drawings,
where no allowance is made for distance, and each object
is alike distinct and near. Some truths are nearer to us
than others. They come home, whilst others remain far
away. They are in the forefront, others in the background. Some are trees under which you sit and gather
fruit, others blue hills in the dim distance. This sort of
perspective is maintained in the Bible. The critical
investigation of systems will lay bare the fact that this
sort of perspective has been often strangely forgotten;
that men have too commonly neglected to distinguish
between different degrees of importance belonging to
different phases of truth,-how some are of immediate,
and some of only remote, interest ; how some are distinct
as the piece of rock on which an Alpine traveiler sits, and
some as vague as feathery lines of snow and cloud, miles
away, melting one into another. Nothing brings out
perspective in theology like the critical study of systems
in the light of God's Word. Contrast wonderfully helps
us here.
6. And with the impression just indicated comes
another-namely, that as there is a graduated scale in
the distance-in the distinctness and in the relative
importance and application of particular truths-so also
there must be, in thoughtful minds, different degrees,
different depths of conviction : of some things we can be
more sure than of others. Of revealed verities we are as

IO

Introduction.

convinced as of our own existence; of formulated presentations of things in human thought and speech, we
cannot say so much, or anything like it. A theological
doctrine is often but an approximation to the truth.
Plato says, "Firmly to assert, 'This is exactly as I have
expressed it,' befits not a- man of intelligence; yet, that
it is either so, or something like it, must certainly be
assumed." These are wise words. We should bear
them in mind in our critical inquiry into opinions; and
while they aid Âľs in judging of approximations to absolute truth which certain doctrines may have reached,
these words also, through the spirit which they breathe,
animate us to inquire respecting degrees and measures of
conviction deserved by the conclusions of great divines.
7. Our investigations will save us from onesidednessa great peril in the path of theological thought. Truth
is one, yethas it more sides than one; and many a fiercely
fought controversy resembles the old knights' quarrel
about the two-faced shield. Error does not run in one
direction ; nor does truth ; there is a marvellous blending
of the two in both orthodox and heterodox systems.
Keeping within Scripture lines, faithful to what is understood by evangelical truth, I hold it of importance to
detect what is erroneous in accepted schemes, and to
select whatÂˇ is true out of rejected ones.
I believe in a combination and harmony of views
taken from different points of the theological compass.
Pelagianism and Augustinianism Âˇare wide as the poles
asunder ; yet human freedom, for which Pelagius contended, must be kept in mind, as well as Divine sovereignty, for which Augustine was so justly jealous. And
that great man, with all his obvious onesidedness, appreciated what was true in his opponent's theory. Is it

Introduction.

II

not, he asks, grace by which God saves the world ? Is
it not free-will according to which He judges the world?
The question about free-will and Divine grace is so difficult, that to defend free-will seems like denying Divine
grace, and to assert Divine grace appears like setting
aside free-will. It is so difficult, and there is such danger
of falling down precipices on one side or other of the
narrow pathway. Nothing shows the difficulty more
than the history of the Augustinian and Calvinistic
controversy, and nothing is more adapted to guard
us against the danger.
The many-sidedness and perfect harmony of God's
truth is wonderful. The media through which it may be
looked at, and the helps, like beautiful optical instruments,
within reach for its examination, are surprisingly numerous and valuable. Philosophers, in an extreme love of
simplicity, have concocted theories of morals based on
some single principle, and fought to the death against a
different theory, whilst a careful induction of moral
phenomena, a careful study of human nature, and a
careful examination of the manifold bearings and aspects
of great principles, lead to the recognition of a pl~rality
of ideas at the root of a sufficient ethical philosophy.
Principles we find everywhere, running not singly, but
in pairs, in triples, in companies. Theology is no exception. Over against one principle lies another which
ought to be combined with it, otherwise the detached
and isolated truth may operate as an error ; and the
speculations, controversies, and contradictions of Christendom seem to be appointed or permitted Jor the very
purpose of bringing this fact before the children of
men.
8. Curiosity as to our ancestors is natural. Instinct

12

lntroducti'on.

guides to the Heralds' Office to search after pedigrees ;
and a like feeling prompts us to inquire into the genealogical tree of opinion-the descent of thought from
generation to generation, until it has become identified
with ourselves, in our convictions, as its last offspring.
We cannot disconnect ourselves, even if we would,
with this ancestry. "We are the heirs intellectual and
moral of the past ; there is no such thing as naked manhood ; the heart of each of us wears livery which it cannot
throw off." It is one of the besetting sins of the present
day to boast of freshness as well as freedom, of originality
as well as independence. Claims of this kind are often
quite imaginary; and when they are not they may be
full of exaggeration. The form, the arrangement, the
expression of theological ideas, are sometimes new, and
have a pleasant and attractive freshness, which calls forth
disproportioned admiration on the part of those not
acquainted with the history of thought. Such history
shows, in many an instance, that what is deemed a new
creation or discovery is only old material melted down,
and stamped with a modern Mint mark. Frequently an
opinion, taken by multitudes to be such as was never
conceived before, is, in truth, but beaten out of ingots
dug up by intellectual toilers whose names are now
despised or forgotten. It is wonderful how late pretentious speculations are found to be copies of what was
propounded by fathers, philosophers, schoolmen, reformers, and old divines. The resemblance, I admit,
is not necessarily a result of imitation. There may 1:>e
mere coincidence between ideas of the present century
and of centuries long ago ; but, at all events, it is plain
that in such cases modern thinkers are but working on
the track of their fathers. One lesson at least is taught :

Introduction.

13

not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought to
think, but to think soberly. Frequently will the lesson
be suggested in the perusal of this volume. And gratitude should mingle with modesty. For we are large
debtors to the men of old, and have derived from them a
good deal of instruction of which we are not sufficiently
conscious.
9. Further, our connection with the past evokes
the sympathies of spiritual life. It attaches us to former
generations, and inspires us with satisfaction and joy to
find, that in the substance of evangelical faith and sentiment we are one with the Church of all ages. To feel
this is a prelibation of heaven, where our present-time
relations will cease, ancestry and posterity will become
contemporaneous, the faith of one will confirm the faith
of another, and the joy of all will be the joy of each.
And so, through that current of action and reaction,
between mind and mind, and heart and heart, the tides
of beatific rapture will swell in ever-deepening streams,
and rush in ever~livelier currents. Not to connect ourselves with the past, not to open the sluice-gates of
sympathy, letting its water into our souls-is to cut
ourselves off from a priceless privilege. It is to get
into a sphere of morbid individuality, where the atmosphere stimulates to pride and conceit, and the child of
to-day thinks himself wiser than the man of yesterday.
We would rather regar4 ourselves as numbered with
God's children, sharing Jn an inheritance bequeathed
ages since to a whole family, including brothers born
before we were, and now gone home to live in the
Father's house, where it will be our turn soon to follow.
IO. I conclude these introductory remarks in the
words of Richard Baxter, at the close of the first part of

14

Introduction.

his Life and Times, worthy of being remembered by all
students: "I had a great delight in the daily new discoveries which I made, and of the light which shined
in upon me, like a man who cometh into a country
where he never was before; but I little knew either how
imperfectly I understood these very points, whose discovery so much delighted me, nor how much might be said
against them. I am much more sensible than ever of
the necessity of living upon the principles of religion
which we are all agreed in, and uniting these ; and hqw
much mischief men that over-value their own opinions
have done by their controversies. I value all things
according to their use and ends ; and I find in the daily
practice and experience of my soul, that the knowledge
of God and Christ and the Holy Ghost, and the truth of
Scripture, and the life to come, is more to me than the
most curious speculations."

PART

I.

FROM THE APOSTOLIC TO THE NICENE PERIOD.
A.D, 100-325.

17

CHAPTER' I.
DISTINGUISHED CHURCH TEACHERS.
HE remains of the Apostolical Fathers, as they are
commonly called, furnish no indications that they
employed their minds upon the study of the Gospel,
beyond what was needful for experimental and practical
purposes.
CLEMENT OF, ROME-supposed by some, but not on
sufficient grounds, to have been St. Paul's companionmay be regarded as representative of this class. His
genuine Epistle, of uncertain date, containing fifty-nine
short sections, is addressed to the Corinthians ; in it he
praises them for their virtues; and then laments the
state of things which had grown up, owing to their
emulation, envy, and strife. He exhorts to repentance,
and adduces examples of Old Testament piety, dwelling
upon the duties of faith, hospitality, and humility; of
the last of these graces, Christ is exhibited as the most
perfect pattern. After this, Clement dwells upon the
excellence of peace, and refers to the harmony of the
universe; then returning to the subject of humility, he
exhorts the Church to believe in the second coming of
Christ, and the resurrection of the dead, which he considers to be typified in the phcenix springing anew out of
its own ashes. God sees all things ; therefore, says this
Father," Let us avoid transgression, and draw near to God
in purity of heart, and do the things that please Him."
We are justified, he proceeds to say, not by our own
works, but by faith; yet we are to maintain the practice

T

C

18

Distinguished Church Teacf?ers.

[PART I,

of good works, for great is their reward. All blessings
come through Christ. He is our Captain ; we are His
soldiers. Let us, then, submit one to another; there
being no reason for self-conceit. The apostles appointed
bishops and deacons, and there should be no contention
respecting the priestly office. He adds, It is wicked to
vex the righteous, and the dissensions existing at the
time are declared by him to be worse than those in the
days of St. Paul. Christian love is again extolled and
enforced ; and strife-makers are exhorted to acknowledge
their sinfulness. Moses is cited as an example of love,
and with him, in this respect, Judith and Esther are
associated. The Epistle ends with peaceful exhortations.It plainly appears from this analysis, that the Epistle
is rather religious than theological, and is by no means
remarkable for force of thought, or for clearness of
arrangement ; and when we turn to the genuine remains
of P0LYCARP and IGNATIUS, they are found to be of no
higher literary order, nor do they present any theological
features beyond those which we find in Clement. The
great difference between the Canonical writers and the
Apostolical Fathers strikes every one who carefully
compares them together; and the comparison suggests a
cogent argument in support of the inspiration of the
New Testament writers. Dr. Arnold speaks of" a wide
belt of desert on every side of the garden of Scripture,
and of the wilderness that reaches up to the very walls ; "
and we verify the truth of the image as we turn from
the Canonical to the earliest Patristic authors. At the
best, we find numerous quotations of Scripture, mostly
from the Old Testament, piled up like unground corn.
There is little or no kneading of Divine truth into daily
bread.

A.D. 100-325.J

Author of Epistle to Diognetus.

19

Next to the writings of the Apostolical Fathers, The
Epistle to Diognetus comes under consideration. This
composition has been assigned to Justin Martyr, and is
printed in his works ; but there is internal evidence of its
not being his. Critics now are agreed that it must be
ascribed to one who lived at an earlier date. "We may
believe that in this beautiful composition we possess a
genuine production of some apostolic man, who lived not
later than the beginning of the second century.'' 1 With
regard both to contents and omissions, it is far superior
to the Epistles just noticed. Its subjects are the vanity
of idols, the superstitions of the Jews, the manners of the
Christians, the manifestation of Christ, the state of the
world before His coming, and why He was sent so late.
These topics occupy ten sections-two others follow,
suspected to be not genuine; From the ninth chapter
I select the following extract :
"He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities,
He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the Holy One
for transgressors, the Blameless One for the wicked,
the Righteous One for the unrighteous, the Incorruptible
One for the corruptible, the Immortal One for them that
are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other was
it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be
justified, than by the only Son of God ? 0 sweet exchange ! 0 unsearchable operation! 0 benefits surpassing all expectation, that the wickedness of many
should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the
righteousness of One should justify many transgressors ! "
There is a true Evangelical ring in these words, and
1 Introduction to the Epistle in Clark's Ante-Nicene Christian
Library-Apostolic Fathers.

C 2

20

Distinguished Church Teachers.

in other portions of this early production. I know not
where else in primitive Church literature to light upon
exactly the same kind of utterances on the subject of the
atonement, and of justification through the righteousness
of Christ. The language of the writer reminds one of what
is afterwards found in Augustine, in St. Bernard, in Martin
Luther, in the Reformers, and in the Puritans: a current
of warm, glowing sentiment rushes through the words
resembling that which Âˇ characterizes the . best theologians of the Evangelical school.
At an early period we meet with a class of divines
who may be termed Traditionalists, in the sense of not
reflecting upon truth, but simply collecting and preserving
that which they deemed to be so, because received from
inspired teachers. Deficient in logical acuteness, they
were not less so in historical criticism, and therefore their
adoption of a report is no proof of its credibility. Such
a man was Papias, who tells us what he learnt from the
elders; and Hegesippus belongs to the same class: it may
be remarked that a Jewish element is found in all these
men. In process of time it produced division, and blended
degrading speculations upon the person of Christ with
an ignorant attachment to ceremonial observances.
A different order of writers soon appeared. There
are minds strongly disposed to inquiry and examination.
They strive after the grounds, reasons, and relations of
things. Some natural peculiarity lies at the basis of such
tendencies, which education and circumstances serve tC?
stimulate and develop. New information is blended
with that alre~dy possessed, whenever any affinity is felt
to exist between. the old and the new. Also, there are
minds eminently practical. They do not care to dig
into foundations; they are content to build up useful

A.D. 100-325.]

'Justin Martyr.

21

superstructures. Having ascertained facts and duties,
they are not curious respecting causes and principles ;
yet such minds may be as acti,ve as those of a different
class, and may have keenness of perception, skill in
arrangement, vigour in argument, together with wisdom
and tact in the practical application of ideas.
These varieties of the human intellect, under the two
names of philosophical and practical, coincide with
varieties in race, country, and climate. Classical history
and literature testify to the predominantly philosophical
cast of the Greek mind, and the practical cast of the
Latin. With intellects of both orders Christianity at an
early period came in contact.
Aristotle 1 speaks of the intellectual repose and
apathy of Asia, and the savage energy and freedom of
Europe. The Eastern loves to muse, to reason, to chew
the cud of reflection and logic, whilst the Western turns
knowledge to practical account, and acts as well as thinks:
philosophy comes from Greece, law from Rome. Hence
the speculative tendency of Eastern theology. The
Eastern Church claims the title of Orthodox; the Eastern
Councils settled creeds. On the other hand, the Western
Church paid more attention to law and discipline, and
produced more eminent Church rulers than are found
in the East. Philosophical Christians, such as Justin
Martyr, and others we are now to notice, were Greek in
lineage and speech, in their cast of mind, and their early
.training.Âˇ
The history of JUSTIN MARTYR'S conversion, about
140 A.D., as beautifully told by himself in his Dialogue
with Trypho the J~di, gives the key to a good deal of his
theology. Walking by the sea-side, one day, he met a
1 Politics, vu. 7.

22

Distinguished Church Teachers.

[PART I

stranger, " an aged person, of reverent aspect, mild and of
venerable mien. ' Do you know me ? ' asked the stranger.
'No,' said Justin. 'Then why look at me so closely?' 'I
am surprised, for I did not expect to see any one in this
lonely place. As for me, I take pleasure in lonely
walks, where I can converse with myself.' 'Are you then
a lover of mere arguments, and not of deeds and truth ? '
' What can one do better,' answered Justin, ' than prove
that reason beareth rule over all things ? Every man
should give himself up to philosophy.' 'Does philosophy
confer happiness?' inquired the old man; 'and what is
philosophy ? ' ' The knowledge of that which is, and the
discernment of truth.' Then they talked of truth, and
the soul, and God. At length Justin asked, ' Whom
shall a man take as his masters ? ' 'There once lived,'
said the stranger, 'men called prophets, who spake by
the Holy Ghost. They did not give demonstrations, for
they were above demonstrations. They glorified God
the Father, and taught of Christ His Son, who was sent
by Him .... Do you, above all things, pray that the gates
of light may be opened to you : for these things are not
to be seen and comprehended except by him to whom
God and His Christ give the grace of understanding.'"
The two men parted. "But," says Justin, " a flame was
immediately kindled in my mind, and I was· seized with
an ardent love of the prophets, and of the friends of
Christ." 1
The Dialogue, prefaced by this little story, is a work
of considerable extent, and is intended to show th_at
Christian doctrine is contained in the Old Testament;
that Jesus is the subject of prophecy; that He is the true
Messiah ; that sacrifices and other typical ordinances
1

Dt'al. Trypho, §§ 3-7.

A.D. 100-325.]

Yustin Martyr.

23

are fulfilled in His life and death ; that the ancient saints
were saved through what He did ; that John the Baptist
was foretold by Isaiah ; in short, that the Divinity of
the Gospel is proved by the old' inspired teachers of the
Jewish Church, and that Jewish unbelief is without
excuse.1
The Dialogue belongs to that class of literature
commonly denominated Christian Evidences ; and it is
intended, of course, to be applied to Jews with a view
to their conversion. To the class of Evidences also
pertain Justin's two Apologies. "After his conversion,
he seems to have considered it his calling to endeavour
to win from their errors men of every nation, Jews and
Gentiles, and those who, under the name of Christians,
taught what was untrue." The first Apology, addressed
to Antoninus Pius, about A.D. 139, "remarkable for its
want of clear arrangement," contains expostulations with
regard to the treatment of Christians, refutations of
charges brought against them, arguments in proof of
Christianity drawn from miracles and prophecy, and
exposures of pagan falsehoods and follies. The second
Apology, addressed to Marcus Aurelius, between A.D.
161 and 166, presents answers to objections against
Christianity, some of which were peculiar to that age,
and it also urges the direct argument, expanded by
Paley, that whilst no man ever died in attestation of
philosophical opinions, men of the lowest ranks were
martyrs in the cause of the Go_spel.
Justin was more of an apologist than a theologian ;
but considerable portions of his writings are ofa dogmatic
character, and he travels along lines of doctrine which
1

A good summary of this work is furnished by Kaye in his

Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin_ Martyr, pp. 18-41.

24

Distinguished Church Teachers.

[PART I.

are to be set forth hereafter in their proper place. As
he had gone the round of Greek speculation, it was
natural that, with a mind like his, he should seek as far
as possible to amalgamate what he had thus learned with the truths he derived from the Christian revelation.
Truths are harmonious, and the relations of some to
others would be sure to come under the notice of a man
of his type ; but it is quite plain, after long experience,
that it becomes persons of this kind to keep a tight rein
upon their mental activity, and mark well the boundaryline between the terra .firma of Divine truth and the
cloud-land of human reveries. These commonplaces of
wisdom were not current in the second century, and they
are apt to be forgotten in the nineteenth. Yet it is
worthy of remark, that Justin insists upon the vast superiority of Scripture teaching to the wisdom of ancient
philosophers, and in the statement of distinctive Christian
doctrine makes a classical allusion in the way of confirmatory argument only in a single instance, and that after
a manner exceedingly obscure. He refers to Plato, as
speaking in the Timceus, "physiologically" of the Son of
God ; and in the same paragraph where this obscure
reference occurs there is another equally obscure, to an
expression in Plato, which Justin interprets in relation to
the Holy Spirit, and the doctrine of the Trinity. 1 No
one, upon a careful examination of the paragraph in
which these notices of Plato are found, can suppose that
the author had derived his belief on the points under
review from a Platonic source; though most readers probably will feel that some colouring has been given to
J ustin's language from the philosophical literature he had
studied. It should also be noticed, that neither does this
1 Ajol. 1., ยง 6o.

A,D, 100--325.]

Justin Martyr,

apologist, in his copious reflections on the Logos, seek
to support his statements by any appeal to the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, or to the writings of
Philo, though he makes numer·ous cita,tions from the
Jewish Scriptures when treating of this important subject.1 Justin spoke of Christ as the .X6yos, or reason, of
which all men participate. Philosophers, he thought, had
in them a seminal portion of the Divine reason, and whatever they taught, and whatever legislators enacted wisely,
came from the same origin. Socrates was debtor to the
Divine Word, as well as Abraham. Hence came all
prophetic inspiration, all philosophical wisdom. 2 Now,
there is a most important sense in which human reason
is God's gift, and human conscience is the voice of
Heaven; but these gifts differ from each other in some
important respects which Justin failed to point out.
Reference will be made hereafter to his opinions on
certain fundamental doctrines, in harmony with, or in
distinction from, other theologians of the ante-Nicene
age; but upon one important subject there are passages
in his writings which may as well be noticed at once as
examples of his habit of thought. "When we say that
future events have been foretold, we do not assert that
they came to pass by any compulsion of destiny, but
that God, foreknowing what all men would do, and
determining with Himself that every man should be
rewarded according to the worth of his actions, foretells
by the Spirit of prophecy, that men should receive even
from Him recompense in proportion to the worth of
their works; always urging the human race to renewed
1 This negative evidence may be easily tested by consulting a
good index to Justin's writings.
2 Apo/. 1., § 46; II., §§ 8, 13.

26

Distinguished Church Teachers.

[PART I.

exertion and recollection, and showing that He has a
care of it, and takes thought for it." 1
"Justin brings forward a cavil of the Jews, either real
or supposed, to this effect : That if it was foretold that
Christ should die on the cross, and that they who caused
His death should be Jews, the event could not fall out
otherwise. To this he replies, that God is not the cause
that men, of whom it is predicted that they shall be wicked,
prove wicked ; but they are themselves the cause : and
if the Scripture foretells the punishment of certain angels
and nien, it is because God foreknows that they will be
unchangeably wicked, not because He has made them
so. He illustrates his meaning by a reference to the
prediction that the Messiah should enter J erusalern seated
on an ass. That prediction, he says, did not cause Hirn
to be the Messiah, but pointed out to mankind a mark
by which they might know that He was the Messiah." 2 .
Two other apologists, or writers on Evidence, claim
a brief notice.
ATHENAGORAS, a heathen philosopher, said to have
been converted by reading the Scriptures, wrote an
Apology for the Christians, probably under Marcus
Aurelius : and another work on the Christian doctrine
of the Resurrection ; and here it is curious to find him
resorting to a kind of metaphysical argument in answer
to unbelievers. Those who deny the resurrection, he
says, should prove either that God cannot or will not
bring it to pass, but that He has power is proved by
creation, and if He has not the will, it must be either
because it would be unjust or unworthy of Hirn to accomplish the fact ; but neither, Athenagoras urges, can be
proved. The subject of the resurrection largely occupied
1 Apo!. 1., ยง 44.
2 Kaye's 'Justin Martyr, p. 81.

A.D. 100-325.]

Theophilus.

27

the thoughts of Christians and their adversaries at that
period; and THEOPHILUS, another converted heathen
(A.D. 181), wrote, respecting the Christian Religion, in
three books; and after dwelling on the spirituality of God,
he takes up the question of rising from the dead. How he
replies to objections is worth noticing. He addresses his
work to one Autolycus, who says, " Show me thy God ; "
and to this demand the arguments for the Divine spirituality are intended to apply. Autolycus is also represented
as asking how any reasonable man could adopt the idea
of a resurrection. " Show me," said he, " one man raised
from the dead, that seeing him I may believe." To this
Theophilus rejoins: "What great thing would it be to
believe what you behold ?-and you, who are so incredulous, still believe that Hercules, though he burnt himself,
is living; and that LEsculapius, struck with lightning, was
raised again after death. What is spoken by God you
will not believe ; and so, if I were to show you a dead
man raised to life, you would not believe. God gives many
proofs of a resurrection in the changes of the seasons
and the heavenly bodies; the fructification of seeds, too, is
a figure of what we expect. A constant resurrection is
going on within yourself now, for your body changes ;
particles of it disappear, and new particles supply the
place ; all this is the work of God. Therefore do not be
sceptical, but believe. I was sceptical once, but am now
convinced by these considerations ; and by the manifest
fulfilment of Scripture prophecies." 1 The writer then goes
on to point out the penalties of unbelief in the world to
come ; thus assuming the attitude not of one engaged in
a mere logical conflict, but of one who felt himself backed
by Divine authority. He and others did not write as
1

Lib. I. c. 13, 14; the passage is here ~ondensed.

28

Distinguished Church Teachers.

LPART I.

philosophers arguing with philosophers about a scientific
theory, but as prophets repeating to their fellow-men the
Revelation they had received in the Holy Scriptures.
This must be remembered, or the tone of these early
writers cannot be understood.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (died about A.D. 220)
was one of the same order as Justin Martyr, thoroughly
Greek, thoroughly imbued with the spirit of philosophy.
He was born a heathen, and in his youth studied the
philosophers and the poets ; 1 but he found no satisfaction
in classical antiquity, and had his thoughts turned to
the Gospel of Christ, with the same result as Justin
Martyr. In Pant.:enus, a Christian teacher in a school
at Alexandria, he found a congenial instructor ; and
after he became a Christian himself he succeeded
his former catechetical master, about the year 189.
His principal works are Exhortations to the Greeks,
in three books, in which he exposes the folly and immorality of paganism, but also discovers in it a prophetic
element; the Pedagogue, or Tutor, which unfolds the
minuti.:e of Christian morality, as he understood it; and
the Stromata, or Miscellanies, in which-according to the
title, literally signifying "pieces of tapestry," in seven
books-all sorts of subjects, including history, poetry,
philosophy, and religion, are brought together. In the
seventh book of the Stromata, Clement characterizes his
own.work as not a well-planted garden, but a mountain in
which the cypress and plane, the laurel and ivy, the apple,
olive, and fig are interspersed without any order. His
1 On the state of philosophy in the Alexfndrian schools, before
and after Clement's time, see Hist. de /'Ecole d'Alex., par Jules
Simon. 2 vols. On the state of opinion amongst philosophical
Jews, consult Essai sur I' Ecole Juive d'Alexandrie, par Biet.

A,D. 100-325.]

Clement of Alexandria.

writings abound in references to ancient literature.
one more fully took possession of classic ground-

29
No

" --the heath.en toil,
The limpid wells and orchards green,
Left ready for the spoil."

He endeavoured to show that from the beginning
mankind have had but one Teacher; and he eagerly strove
to find Christ in Plato. Philo, the philosophical Jew, was
also one of his masters, who, by his theological system
and expository writings, exerted great influence over the
Alexandrian Father. 1 Fond of philosophical ideas and
philosophical diction, Clement indulged in curious conjectures; but it does not appear that the substance of his
most important religious opinions was thereby seriously
vitiated. Indeed, his philosophy was accommodated to his
divinity, rather than his divinity to his philosophy; and
it may be safely affirmed that he was a man of pure
and upright mind, sincerely desirous of promoting the
kingdom of Christ in the world.
An impartial study of his works will probably lead
to the following impressions : That he throws some of
the grand truths of Revelation, in which he fully believed-such as the redemptive aspect of the work of
Christ, the connection between the forgiveness of sin and
the death of our Lord, and the effect of faith on the
justification and holiness of the saved-too much into
the background : that much of the teaching of St.
Paul on the fundamental principles of the Gospel is
not reflected in any of Clement's works: that he gives
undue prominence to contemplative knowledge as an
1

The influence of Philo on Clement is illustrated by the Abbe
Biet, in his Essai sur l' Ecole Juive d' Ale>:andrie.

30

Distinguished Cliurch Teachers.

[PART I.

element in experimental religion, thus favouring a habit
of mere mysticism, and also assimilating the model of
Christianity "as much as possible to that of philosophical perfection:" that he frequently dwells upon
what is obscure, trivial, and useless; though, at the
same time, it must be confessed we should be unwilling
to lose the minute picture of Alexandrian manners and
customs preserved in the details of his Pedagogue: and
that he occasionally leans to that side of theology which
was afterwards taken up by Pelagius, as when, for
example, Clement dwells upon free-will, and man's
power to perform Divine commandments, without duly
insisting upon the necessity of Divine grace. The most
serious of all the drawbacks in the teaching of Clement
is, perhaps, his doctrine of reserve and of accommodation. His position is, that the mysteries of the faith
are not to be divulged to all. In connection with a
commendable reference to our Lord's words respecting
pearls cast before swine, Clement goes beyond what
Christian prudence dictates, as to the importance of
adaptation in religious teaching, for he lays down the
principle that it is requisite to hide in mystery the
wisdom taught by the Son of God. 1
This rule of reserve led to a distinction between
the common believer and the true Gnostic - resembling
somewhat the law of initiation into heathen mysteries;
and with it is connected the principle of accommodation.
"Being," he says, " ever persuaded of the omnipresence
of God, the Gnostic is satisfied with the approval of
God, and of his own conscience. Whatever is in his
mind is also upon his tongue towards those who are
fitting recipients : both in speaking and in living, he
' Stromata, lib.

I.

c.

12.

A.D, 100-325.]

Clement of Alexandria.

harmonizes his profession with his opinions. He both
thinks and speaks what is true, except perhaps in the
way of sanative treatment ; then, as a physician, for the
good of his patients, he may beÂˇ false, or utter a falsehood, as the Sophists would call it." But Clement also
remarks," They are not really deceivers who accommodate
themselves in conformity to the part assigned them for
the salvation of others." 1 Such observations involve
principles of casuistry of a most pernicious description,
and carried out in after ages, they produced very pernicious results. It may be further observed, that Clement's
moral instructions do not show him to have been a true
moral philosopher; and that we have only to compare
Clement with Paul, to become thoroughly convinced of
the superiority of that mode of instruction which lays
down principles rather than minute precepts, and leaves
the former to be applied by the conscience and discretion
of individuals. Yet it must not be overlooked, that in
those early times, when the Church was in its childhood,
specific teaching was needed as much as the inculcation
of general truths. 2
We now approach a greater man. ORIGEN exhibits
the tendencies of Justin and Clement in excess ; if they
occasionally soared into the regions of allegory and
mysticism, he made them his home ; if they said some
things erroneous or dubious, he started several questions
either heretical or tending to heresy. Through his
whole career he indicated his intellectual bent. He
was inquisitive to the last degree, and could digest all
kinds of knowledge, whence he was called xaAKEvnpos
1

Stromata, lib. vu. c. 8, 9.
See Kaye's Clement of Alexandria for a digest of his
views.
2

32

Distinguished Church Teachers.

[PART I.

(the brazen-bowelled). He was born A.D. 185, and his
father-a Christian -gave him a careful education,
making him commit to memory portions of Scripture
every day. Language and grammar were by him profoundly studied, and he became a most distinguished
Hebrew scholar. He studied under Clement of Alexandria, and no doubt imbibed something from his
master, but he was too original, vigorous, and independent, to be moulded strongly by external influences ;
and we are told distinctly that he resisted the Gnostic
teaching of Paul of Antioch, who lived in the same
family with himself. Refusing to adopt any Gnostic
theory, he, however, so far sympathized with the spirit of
the system, as to give knowledge a supreme place in his
conceptions of Christianity, and to aspire after transcendental views of the Redeemer. He distinguished
between those who know Him after the flesh, that is to
say, in His sufferings, death, and resurrection-in other
words, those who have an historical acquaintance with
the Gospel,-and the Gnostics, those who rise from the
historical to the spiritual. Communion with the Logos,
or eternal reason, he supposed might become the channel
of a higher knowledge, illuminating the Gnostic with a
Divine philosophy. All this may be made to mean very
different things, according to the way in which it is
interpreted.
Origen's Tetrapla and Hexapla are well-known editions of the Old Testament - the former containing
four versions, the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, and
Theodotion-the latter, six in some parts, and in others
nine. His exegetical works include the Tomoi, or
volumes of learned Commentary; the Scholia, or brief
notes on Scripture; and the HomiliaJ, or popular expo-

A.D. 100-325.]

Origen.

33

positions. These do not come within the range of our
present discussion. Nor can I take notice of his Letters.
But it is appropriate here to remark, that Origen
seems to have been the first of the Fathers who formed
a definite view of the inspiration of the Scriptures.
The "verbal" doctrine seems implied by him; for, in
his Commentary on the First Ps~lm, he extends inspiration to the minutest letter. He compares Revelation
to nature in this respect, that Divine influence extends
to small things as well as great. 1 This verbal theory
underlaid Origen's system of allegorical interpretation.
His well-known apologetic work, Contra Celsum, was
written in defence of Christianity against the attacks of
Celsus, a philosopher. His work entitled, m:pl apxwv,
or De Principiis, which is a systematic exhibition of
Christian doctrine, chiefly concerns us, being an early
attempt to give a connected view of the principles of the
Gospel. He adopted an obvious method of division,
pursued by numerous theologians in later times, first
treating of God, then of Christ, then of the Holy Spirit.
These are the subjects of the first book, which also
includes the fall, the nature of angels, and the destinies
of the universe. The second book embraces the world,
the identity of the God of the Old Testament with the
God of the New, the Incarnation of Christ, the resurrection
of the body, and the punishment of the wicked. The
third book takes up the freedom of the will, the agency
of Satan, the temptation of man, and the origin and end
of the world. The fourth relates to the Divine origin
of the Scriptures, and the proper mode of studying them.
This selection of topics is important, as throwing light
1
Philocalia, c. II. p. 23, quoted by Henderson on Divine
Inspiration, p. 57.
D

Distinguished Church Teachers.

34

[PART I,

upon Origen's theology, for it indicates what most
interested him ; and the omission of certain topics of
moment betrays his neglect of certain elements of Divine
truth. The positive views he enunciated led to much
controversy, and brought upon him serious charges of
heresy : what his opinions were in reference to some
main lines of doctrinal 'opinion in ante-Nicene times will
appear hereafter. 1 But, in the mean while, it is desirable
to refer to that peculiar theory of the universe which
he develops, though very obscurely, in some portions of
his great work. He raises the question whether any
other world existed before the present one ; 2 and explicitly asserts, as his opinion, the existence of rational
creatures from the beginning, in the unseen and eternal
ages before the formation of the earth on which we dwell. 3
He believed that these were of different orders, some
designed to minister for the welfare of others; and speaks
of a descent amongst them from a higher to a lower
condition, "not only on the part of such who deserved
the change, but also on the part of others, who, to serve
the world, were banished from the invisible realms
against their will." We are to suppose that the\world
was created of such a nature, as to contain not only
those souls which were to be trained in it, but also those
powers which were prepared for their assistance. Upon
the pre-existence of the rational soul of Christ in connection with His Divine nature he emphatically insists,
and speaks of the anointed union of Christ's soul with
the Word of God as a reward for its love of righteousness.4 The nature of His soul was the same as that
of others, with the power of choosing between good and
1

evil; but in Him an inextinguishable love destroyed all
susceptibility of change. Origen held that a special
ministry in the dispensations of time belongs to the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; and that, whilst
the Lord dwells in every man, as wisdom or reason, the
Holy Ghost dwells only in those who are walking along
the way which leads to Christ.1 He makes a distinction
between the understanding and the soul, and gives it as
a speculative -opinion of his own, that the higher nature,
the understanding in man, has fallen away, and been
converted into the soul, losing its Divine fire and its love
of righteousness : which idea may be taken as Origen's
theory of the fall. 2 As he speculates on worlds before
the present, he does so likewise on the existence of worlds
hereafter, in which those who have not here obeyed
God's Word may, by rational training, arrive at an
understanding of the truth; for the correction and improvement of those who may need it, another world
resembling this, either better or worse, may be provided. Also, in connection with his theory of pre-existent
orders, and their deterioration and fall, he speaks of
their being remoulded by discipline, and restored to
happiness. 3 Here he says: "Whether any of those
orders which act under the government of the devil
will, in a future state, be converted to righteousness . . .
is a result, which you, reader, may approve of, if neither
in this nor other worlds that result is to differ from the
final unity and fitness of things." He thinks this will
appear to follow, that every rational nature may advance
through successive stages of proficiency and failure,
aC'cording to endeavours put forth through freedom of
the will; 4 and he does not appear confident but that,
1

De Principiis, lib.

I.

c. 3.

2

lib.
D2

II.

c. 8.

3

lib. r. c. 6.

4

Ibid.

Distinguished Church Teachers.

[PART I.

after all, sin, though checked or extinguished, may
break out again. These are his words : "The end of all
is to abolish evil; but whether it shall be so completely
destroyed that it never can revive, it is beyond our
purpose to say." 1 Thus we have endeavoured briefly to
indicate Origen's theory of a final restoration, adhering
throughout, as far as possible, to his own phraseology,
which gives a different complexion to his subject from
what is presented in many summaries of his theological doctrines. It is sufficient to remark, that his
scheme is purely philosophical from beginning to end,
and will carry no weight with those who feel that the
explicit teaching of Scripture alone affords a ground for
confident belief with regard to the mysteries of the
future life. At the same time, every reader must be
struck with the fact, that theories now thought original,
and becoming popular, are but reproductions, in some
modified form, of guesses expressed by this remarkable
man, who, by the way, does not seem to have attached
to them that dogmatic character which is now claimed
for some opinions which coincide with his.
As in the case of the Epistle to Diognetus we see one
lasting current of theological thought, the Evangelical;
so, in the writings of Justin Martyr, Clement, and Origen,
we detect another, which, in the main, has never ceased
to flow. In the Philosophical cast of these teachings may
be detected the ancestry of intellectual methods characteristic of the Cambridge School of the seventeenth
century; succeeded by the broad theological spirit which
has revived in our own times.
Âˇ
Western divines are to be distinguished from their
Eastern brethren. IRENJEUS, born in Asia Minor, between
1

Contra Celsum, lib.

VIII.

c.

72.

lrenmus.

A,D, 100-325-]

37

the years A.D. I 20 and 140, appears as a presbyter in
Southern Gaul in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180),
and we meet with him as Bishop of Lyons about 178.
Though a man of education, Âˇ and acquainted with
philosophy, what he brought from the East consisted
chiefly in habits of thought derived from Polycarp of
Smyrna, the instructor of his youth. Upon that early
period of his life, he in advanced age loved to dwell.
"I remember the events of those times much better
than those of more recent occurrence. As the studies
of youth, growing with our minds, unite with them
so firmly, I can tell the very place where the blessed
Polycarp was accustomed to sit and converse, and also
his walks, manner of life, appearance, and conversation,
and the reports he gave of what he had heard from John
concerning the Lord." "These things I attentively heard,
noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart." 1
In this interesting passage there is reference to the
early life of Irenceus. He had not been a heathen
philosopher like Justin Martyr. He had not studied in
the schools of Alexandria, like Clement and Origen.
He was not imbued with the spirit of classical literature.
He was brought up amongst Christians. The studies of
his youth were directed by "the blessed" Polycarp. He
had been a disciple of the martyr, had heard from him
about the Apostle John, and had drunk in from boyhood
the inspiration of a simple, humble, earnest, spiritual
faith. It is apparent how he had imbibed a reverence
for authority. He was not a speculator, not a rationalist,
not an intuitional thinker, but one who fully submitted
to apostolic authority. The miracles and doctrines of
the Lord, what St. John had seen and told, all this was
1

Eusebius, Hist., lib. v. c.

20.

Distinguished Church Teachers.

[PART I.

conclusive with Irenceus. He eschewed all attempts at
explaining the mysteries of Christianity ; observing that
in the natural works of creation, which are subject to our
touch and sight, there are many things which we cannot
understand, but only refer to God, as the First Cause.
In his refutations of heresy, "he ever built on the words
of Scripture, as their only secure foundation ; and it
would be impossible for the best Biblical divine of the
present day to quote more largely or more familiarly
every portion of the inspired volume." 1 We trace the
influence of his youth upon his after life in reference to
authority.
Having been brought into contact with
Polycarp, and having heard him talk so much of St.
John, he loved to gather up all he could from living
teachers in the Church, as to what they had heard
from others respecting the Fathers of their faith, and
respecting Jesus Christ, the author of salvation.
No one can be surprised that, within a hundred years
of the death of the last apostle, importance should be
attached to accounts of doctrine handed down by old
men who had known him ; yet even Irenceus urged
tradition against heretics, chiefly on the ground that
the heretics had recourse to it as more con,iusive than
Scripture. The champion would fight them with their
own weapons ; yet, in doing so, it must be acknowledged,
Irenceus and others unwittingly employed an instrument
used in a very different manner by persons citing tradition
1

In reference to Iremeus, Newman remarks: "It must not
be supposed that this appeal to tradition in the slightest degree
disparages the sovereign authurity and sufficiency of Holy Scripture
as a record of the truth." "Apostolical tradition is brought forward,
not to supersede Scripture, but, in conjunction with Scripture, to
refute the self-authorized, arbitrary doctrines of the heretics."Arians of the Fourth Century, by Dr. Newman, c. I.ยง iii. 2.

A.D. 100-325.]

lrenceus.

39

by itself as sufficiently authoritative, centuries after )ts
obscure origin. His horror of heresy is apparent from
what Eusebius states. He apprehended that bold speculations, old worn-out oriental ide'as, and all mythological
inventions, were foreign to Christianity. He was particularly shocked at the sight of Gnosticism, which rose
before him as the most abominable and mischievous of
all errors, exhibiting, as it did, in his estimation, an
inaccessible Deity, without any relation to mankind,
without will, without love, without providence, removed
far away from the government of the world; and with
such an one he delighted to contrast the God of the
Old and New Testaments-holy, free, loving, mysterious
in His nature, but manifesting Himself to His creatures
through His inexhaustible benevolence.1
Some have spoken of the peaceable disposition of
I renceus, of his charity towards those who differed in
non-essentials, of the harmony between his character
and his name ; but he was indignant at anything which
touched what he regarded as vital truths, and uses the
strongest expressions against Marcion, saying that he
spoke " as with the mouth of the devil." 2
This temper appears in his Treatise against Heresies,
which is divided into five books. "The first of them
contains a minute description of the tenets of the various
heretical sects, with occasional remarks in illustration of
their alleged .absurdities, and in confirmation of the truths
which they were believed to oppose. In his second book,
Irenceus proceeds to a more complete demolition of those
opinions, which he had already explained, and argues
at great length against them, on grounds principally of
1
2

Ampere, Hist. Lit. de la France,
Adv. Heer., lib. I. c. xxvii. ยง 3.

I.

186.

40

Distinguished Church Teachers.

[PART I.

reason. The three remaining books set forth more
directly the doctrines of Revelation, as being in utter
antagonism to the views held by Gnostic teachers. In
the course of this argument, many passages of Scripture
are quoted and commented on - many interesting
statements are made, bearing on the rule of faith, and
much important light is shed on the doctrines held, as
well as the practices observed, by the Church of the
second century." 1
After all, blended with his submission to authority,
we find in him elements akin to those we have noticed in
Justin Martyr and Clement. He could Platonize ; and
though at times sober in his interpretations of Scripture,
at other times he could betake himself to allegory, and
that in the very objectionable form of giving to patriarchal misdeeds a mystical meaning. 2 But it should
be added, that he also taught how God inflicted upon
His people punishment for their transgressions, as is
eminently manifest in the case of David.3
One main characteristic of Irenceus consists in his
adherence to apostolic teaching; he brings out, in an
orthodox form, the doctrines of our Lord's Divinity and
Incarnation, dwelling on what He was, rather than on
what He did. These doctrines he exhibits in opposition to heretical misrepresentation and arguments.
What he taught respecting redemption will appear in a
subsequent chapter. He is decidedly the .champion of
1

The treatise, entitled by himself,

'E;\.Eyxoi:

,cu1

avarpo1r,) riji;

'f!wowvvÂľov rvwuEwi;, is called, after Jerome, Adversus Hcereses.

Beavan's account of the life and writings of Iren::eus is the work of
a diligent and sympathizing critic, and contains a useful analysis
of his author's opinions. We have made use of the Introductory
Notice to Iren::eus in Clark's Ante-Nicene Library.
3 Ibid. lib. IV. c. xxvii. Â§ I,
2 Adv. Heer., lib. IV. c. xxxi.

A.D. 100--325.]

Irenceus.

41

Church orthodoxy. "The truth," he says, " is to be
found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole
depositary of apostolical doctrine;" and here it will be
interesting and instructive to append two confessions,
one longer, the other shorter, which he has given as
summaries of orthodox belief:
"For the Church, although spread throughout the
world, even to the utmost bounds of the earth, and
having received from the apostles and their disciples the
faith in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven
and earth, and the seas, and all that in them is ; and in
one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate for
our salvation; and in one Holy Ghost, who through the
prophets preached the dispensations, and the advents,
and the birth of a Virgin, and the passion, and the
resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven
in flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and His
coming from heaven in the glory of the Father, to gather
together all things in one, and to raise from the dead all
flesh of all mankind; that according to the good pleasure
of the invisible Father, every knee may bow to Christ
Jesus, our Lord and God and Saviour and King, of things
in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the
earth, and everytongue may confess to Him; and that He
may execute just judgment upon them all, and send into
eternal fire the spirits of wickedness, and the angels that
sinned and were in rebellion, and the ungodly and unjust and lawless and blasphemous amongst men; and
bestowing life upon the just and holy, and those who
have kept His commandments, and remained in His love,
some from the beginning and some after repentance,
might give them incorruption, and clothe them with
eternal glory. Having received this preaching, and this

Distinguished Church Teachers.

42

[PART r.

faith, as we said before, the Church, tliough dispersed
throughout the world, keeps it diligently."
And again:
"But what if the apostles had not left us any writings?
Must we not have followed the order of that tradition
which they delivered to those to whom they entrusted
the Churches ?-which order is assented to by those
many barbarous tribes who believe in Christ, who have
salvation written by the Spirit in their hearts without
paper and ink, and diligently keep the old tradition ;
believing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that in them is, by Christ Jesus, the Son of
God ; who for His most exceeding love towards His own
handywork, submitted to be born of the Virgin, Himself
by Himself uniting man to God, and suffered under
Pontius Pilate, and rose again, and was received up in
glory, and will come again to be the Saviour of those
who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged,
and sendeth into eternal fire those who pervert the truth,
and despise His Father and His coming." 1
In the writings of Irenceus may be traced the current
of thought and feeling characteristic of a class of
theologians who have appeared in all ages, as distinguished from those represented by the author of the
Epistle to Diognetus, and from those represented by the
Alexandrian school. Irenceus, as to his method, comes in a
line with a comprehensive school of Catholic Theologians;
but as to the substance of his teaching, with some exceptions, he represents orthodox teachers of all schools.
HIPPOL YTUS has of late taken a prominent placÂˇe
amongst patristic writers. A MS. was discovered in 1857,
containing a treatise entitled, Philosophoumena, or Refu.

1

Bea van's Account of Irena'zts, pp. 158-161.

A.D. 100-325.J

Hippolytus and Tertu!Han.

43

tation of all Heresies. It was at first ascribed to Origen,
but, upon careful examination by competent critics, it is
now attributed to Hippolytus, Bishop ofPortus Romanus,
early in the third century.1 It gives an outline of heathen
philosophies, treats of heathen astrology and magic,
takes up and examines the different branches of heresy,
philosophical and Jewish, and refutes them by tracing
them to their origin. In the ninth book there are
curious and strange disclosures of matters connected
with the Church in Rome; and in the tenth the author
gives a confession of his own faith. 2
He is chiefly a compiler, borrowing without acknowledgment, and indebted for his theology to Iren;eus, whom
he follows with little deviation. "He repudiates philosophy almost with Tertullian's vehemence, as the source
of all heresies, yet he employs it to establish his own
views." 3
We must now turn to an author much more original,
and much better known, belonging to afiother class of
theologians different in thought and language.
What Origen was amongst the Greeks, TERTULLIAN
(who died about A.D. 240) was among the Latins,
" nostrorum omnium facile 'princeps." But Tertullian
enjoyed pre-eminence over Origen, and all the other
Fathers of the age, in that he was the founder of theology
in a new language. The literature of Latin Christianity
1 See Bunsen's Hippolytus and his Age, and Wordsworth's St.
Hippolytus and the Church of Rome. A smaller work by Taylor,
entitled, Hippolytus and the Christian Church, founded on the larger
works, will be useful to the young student.
2 The original work has been edited by Duncker and Schneidewin.
Gott., 1859. There is a translation of it, and of fragments from
other works by Hippolytus, in Clark's Ante-Nicene Library.
3 Schaff's Hist. of the Chn"stian Church, vol. I. p. 495.
Âˇ

44

Distinguished Church Teachers.

[PART I,

owes its birth to him. Pagan Rome had blotted out
Carthage. Christian Carthage now took precedence of
Rome. We hear Punic Latinity raising its voice in
Christendom before we catch the Christian accents of
that deep rich tongue from any other part of the world.
Theology was all Greek till Tertullian made it Latin;
in his hands it certainly exhibits those strong features of
practical realism which belongs to all things truly Roman.
Neander calls Tertullian, Antignostikos. The title is just
in its largest meaning. For he was not a Gnostic in the
Clementine, any more than the heretical, sense of the term.
He had no sympathy with the Alexandrians. Plato
was no favourite, and he broadly insinuates that the demon
of Socrates was of a very questionable character. T ertullian's theology, then, took a different shape from that of
Justin Martyr and the other Greeks. If the habits of a
Greek sage are seen in Clement, the habits of a Latin
lawyer are visible in Tertullian, for he was wont, in his
advocacy, to p1ay the part of a special pleader; and his
arguments, though honestly adopted, were often of such
a character as to raise a suspicion of his not being over
scrupulous. 1 The principal works of Tertullian are
divided into those which he wrote before he became a
Montanist, and those which he wrote afterwards. N eander
assigns to the first period, the tracts, Ad Martyres,
De SpectacuNs, and De Idololatrid; the two books, Ad
Nationes; Apologeticus; and the treatise, De Testimonzo
Anima!; the tracts, De Patientid, De Oratione, De
Baptismo, De Pamitentid, and De Pra!scriptione Heretic1 Tertullian's Apology furnishes illustrations of this. His statements respecting miracles, and the number of Christians, betray a
want of careful consideration, and too great anxiety to make out a
case.

A.D. 100-325.]

Tertullian.

45

orum; the two books, Ad Uxorem; and the two books,
De Cultu F ceminarum.
He assigns to the second, the tracts, De Corond,
De Fugd in Persecutione, Scorpiace; the tracts, Ad
Scapulam, De Exhortatione Castitatis, De 111onogamid,
De Pudicitid, De :Je.funiis, De Virginibus Velandis, and
De Pallio; the five books adversus lvlarcionem, the first of
which was written in 208-the only case in which there
is explicit evidence of a date ; and the tracts, Adversus
Valentinianos, De Carne Christi, De Resurrectione Carnis,
Adversus Hermogenem, De Animd, Adversus Praxean,
and Adversus :Judceos. 1
The books ofTertullian which bear most closely on the
history of dogmatic opinion are those against Marcion and
that against Praxeas. The former, which supply painful
illustrations of a virulent controversial spirit, refer to
the existence and character of evil, to the origin of
human sin in the free will of man, to the incarnation
of the Messiah, and to the Divine origin and uses of the
Mosaic law. The latter, against Praxeas, constitutes a
defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, in opposition to the
idea of the three Divine names being simply an indication of offices or operations by one and the same glorious,
infinite, and immaculate Being. We shall have occasion
to refer to this subject again.
Like Hippolytus, Tertullian, whilst eschewing philosophy, could make use of it for his own purposes, and
in his treatise De Animd, where he grapples with Plato,
he employs keen dialectics and rash speculations on the
side of the corporeity of the human soul; yet he could
appeal to tradition like Irenceus.
1 Neander's Antignosticus; see Kaye's Eccl. Hist., illustrated
from Tertul/ian. Kaye's arrangement differs frol!l N eander's.

Distinguished Church Teachers.

[PART 1,

Though occasionally allegorizing texts which we
should take literally, Tertullian was opposed to such a
method of interpretation as prevailed in Alexandria ;
and some of his remarks on the interpretation of
parables are sober and judicious, and worth attention
in our own times. 1
Tertullian wrote against the Gnostics, thus coming
forward as a champion of orthodoxy; but when he
became a disciple of Montanus, as already indicated,
the disciple drank in the ascetic spirit of his master.
Generally,Montanus and Tertullian have been unfairly
dealt with. Montan us, no doubt, was an enthusiast, and
imagined himself endowed with supernatural gifts ; and
Tertullian came to sympathize with him. Both were very
ascetic, but there is a bright side to the characters of
both. The first seems to have been deeply impressed with
the abiding work of the Holy Spirit, and the continued
need of His illumination . and grace, and the second
shared in the sentiment ; moreover, both, in an age
of laxity, were advocates for strict moral discipline in
the Church, an important object, which they damaged
by peculiar rules, for example, by forbidding second
marriages to the clergy, and by their ascetic temper. It
is a mistake to suppose that an ascetic temper generally
characterized the Church in the second century, since it is
clear that the orthodox found fault with Tertullian for his
doctrine of fasting. 2 The charge of immorality brought
against Montanus rests on the authority Qf Cyril of Jerusalem ; and, as Dr. Newman admits, is not satisfactorily
borne out by other writers. As regards the notions of
Montanus respecting the Paraclete, Dr. Burton remarks :
1
2

De Pudicitid, Â§Â§ 8, 9.
See Hist. of the Early Christian Ch., by Mossman, eh. 18.

A.D. 100-325.]

Tertullian.

47

" Montanus distinguished the Paraclete promised by
Christ to the apostles from the Holy Spirit that was poured
out upon them ; and held that under the name of the Paraclete, Christ indicated a Divine Teacher who would supply
certain parts of the religious system which were omitted by
the Saviour, and explain more clearly certain other parts
which for some reasons had not been perfectly taught." 1
This Latin Father expressly exhibits the asceticism
of those who were not Christians as a stimulus to those
who were. He extols continence in pagan virgins-those
who tended the vestal fires ; and " These things," he adds,
"the devil teaches his own, and is obeyed. He challenges,
doubtless,as though on equal terms, the servants of God by
the continency of his own." 2 If pagan idolaters provoked
Tertullian, surely heretics would do the same. He might,
he did, protest against the Gnostic condemnation of marriage, and, in a certain way, he acknowledged its sanctity,
but still he showed himself under the power of Gnostic
asceticism, when extolling the saintliness of celibacy, and
insisting on the inferiority of married people. It is quite
plain that the influence of Montanus penetrated into
the Church system through Tertullian: and of all who
departed from Church doctrines, Montanus was most
tenderly treated by the Fathers ; 3 yet in this liberality
they have been greatly exceeded by a modern Catholic
of extensive fame.
According to Dr. Newman, Montanus only came a
1

p.

Leet. on the Efcl, Hist. of the F'irst Three Centuries, vol.

II.

1 55·
2

Ad Uxorem, lib. r. § 6.
Victor, Bishop of Rome, at first looked favourably upon
Montanus, and gave him letters of communion, which he afterwards
withdrew, in consequence of statements made by Praxeas.Tertullian, Adv. Praxean, § 1.
3

Distinguished Church Teachers.

[PART I.

little too soon. A few centuries later, and he would
have been a saint. Dr. Newman recognizes in him a
great forerunner in the path of development. "Not
in one principle or doctrine only," he says, "but in its
whole system, Montanism is a remarkable anticipation
or presage of developments which soon began to show
themselves in the Church, though they were not perfected for centuries after. Its rigid maintenance of the
original creed, yet its admission of a development, at
least in the ritual, has been instanced in the person of
Tertullian. Equally Catholic in their principle, whether
in fact or in anticipation, were most of the other peculiarities of Montanism-its rigorous fasts, its visions, its
commendations of celibacy and martyrdom, its contempt of temporal goods, its penitential discipline, and
its centre of unity. The doctrinal determinations, and
the ecclesiastical usages of the Middle Ages, are the true
fulfilment of its self-willed and abortive attempts at
precipitating the growth of the Church. The favour
shown to it for a while by Pope Victor is an evidence of
its external resemblance to orthodoxy." 1 A thing so
like what was realized in Media!val Christendom, so
favoured by some, so kindly treated by most, so zealously embraced and recommended by the eloquent
Tertullian, could not fail to have influence, and to help
on the consummation which, according to Dr. Newman,
it too eagerly anticipated. Imbued with an ascetic
spirit from the beginning, the presbyter of Carthage
naturally adopted the extravagances of his new oracle,
and throwing them into his own writings, transferred
them over to the Church, which continued to read and
admire his works, after he had become separate from its
1

Newman's Essay on Development, p. 3~1.

A.D.

roo-325.)

Cyprian.

49

communion. In addition to what Tertullian did immediately, in this respect, he did more indirectly through the
influence he acquired over the mind of Cyprian; for no
more powerful and popular teache'r of asceticism appeared
in th~ third century than the martyr Bishop of Carthage.
CYPRIAN-born about A.D. 200, and beheaded, 258used to express his admiration of Tertullian by saying,
when he asked for his works, "Give me my master." 1
The effect of this admiration is apparent in his writings ;
and, in addition to the nourishment of an ascetic temper,
derived from that source, "perhaps Tertullian's Montanism may have shared, as well as the African temperament, in producing Cyprian's tendency to a belief
in frequent supernatural visitations." 2 The works of
Cyprian include Epistles, eighty-one in number, which
throw a most interesting light upon the Church life of
that period. He produced two apologetic works, the
first against heathenism, De Jdolorum Vanitate, chiefly
borrowed from Tertullian and from another author,
Minucius Felix ; the second against Judaism, Testimonia adversus Judceos, consisting merely of Scripture
passages, proving our Lord's Messiahship and Divinity.
Cyprian also wrote tracts on the Unity of the Church,
the Grace of God, the Lord's Prayer, Death, Worldly
Mindedness, Pride of Dress, Christian Martyrdom, Penitential Discipline, Liberality, and Patience. The enumeration of his books is sufficient to show that his teaching
was rather practical than theological. The master ideas
of his mind were Church unity and ascetic discipline;
and through the enforcement of them he made a powerful
impression upon the Christian Church.
1 Jerome is the authority for this anecdote, De Vir. Illustr.
2 Robertson, Hist. of the Church, vol. J. p. r 79.
c. 53.
E

,\

50

Distinguished Church Teachers.

[PART I.

His direct power in shaping the theological belief of
Christendom was very small ; but his indirect power,
through the inspiration of ecclesiastical sentiments of
the kind just indicated, which served mightily to influence dogmatic conclusions afterwards reached, was very
great It should be added, that no other of the anteNicene Fathers has left such traces of deep experimental piety. He was neither a self-righteous Pharisee,
nor a prelate seeking power for his own sake.
He
toiled, suffered, and died for the sake of the Church,
for the sake of his Lord. Happy he who can sympathize
with Cyprian in his victory over the world, in his willingness to part with all for Christ, and in his triumphant
hope of a blessed immortality !
LACTANTIUS, so called, it is supposed by some, from
the milky softness of his style (died about A.D. 325), may
be included in the ante-Nicene group of divines. He may
be numbered amongst the numerous early controversialists, having written on Christian Evidence; but he is chiefly
remarkable as a systematic theologian, in this respect
resembling Orig en. The Divinm I nstitutionesof Lactantius
may be placed side by side with Origen's De Principiis.
In the first chapter of the fifth book, he plays the part of a
critic, and whilst speaking in respectful terms of Minucius
Felix, Tettullian, and Cyprian, he complains that suitable
and skilful teachers are wanting to set forth acceptably
the truths of the Gospel; and therefore he steps forward
himself, with not a little confidence, to supply the lack of
service. The work is a collection of separate essays,
exposing the falsehood of paganism and the insufficiency
of heathen philosophy. It also exhibits, in his own
approved philosophical fashion, the principles of Christianity. The false worship of the gods, the origin of error,

A.D. 100-325.]

Lactantius.

51

the false wisdom of philosophers, true wisdom and religion, righteousness, worship, and a happy life-these
are topics on which he descants at large; and in an
Epitome of the Institutes, he explains his object, as
including the proof of the following truths - That
there is one God, and cannot be more, for which testimonies are adduced from the philosophers and the
sibyls ; that God is eternal, immortal, holy, unlike the
mythological deities ; that God is the Creator of men
and angels; that, on account of sin, He drove Adam from
paradise ; that Providence reveals His patience ; that the
chief good to be sought is found in righteousness and
immortality ; that the name of Christ is known to none
but Himself and His Father; that the nativity is proved
from the prophets, also Christ's power, passion, and
resurrection ; that salvation comes through the death on
the cross ; that the world was made on account of man ;
and that, in the last times, there shall be a second advent,
and a millennial reign. Besides these main points,
practical topics are introduced.

E 2

52

CHAPTER II.
HERETICAL DOGMAS.

of error were sown in the time of the
apostles.
l. Christian law was exchanged for ascetic rules of
abstinence. " Let no man," says St. Paul, "beguile you
of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshlpping
of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not
seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and
bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together,
increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be
dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why,
as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
(touch not; taste not ; handle not ; which all are to
perish with the using;) after the commandments and
doctrines of men ? Which things have indeed a show of
wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of
the body ; not in any honour to the satisfying of the
flesh." 1 Moreover, Antinomianism appeared. It was
wrought into a theory, was excused, was defended. Paul
speaks of those who said, " Let us do evil, that good may
come," and who slanderously declared this maxim to be
in harmony with the Gospel teaching of justification by
faith. 2 He also warned the Ephesians against sophistries
(vain, empty words, KÂŁvo'i:s >..oyois),8 by which certain
teachers strove to justify certain sins, probably contend-

S

EEDS

1

Col. ii. 18-23.

1

Rom. iii. 8.

3

Eph. v. 6.

A.D. 100-325.) Heresies Noticed in the New Testament.

53

ing that bodily acts could not contaminate the spiritual
man. From Jude and Peter, we learn that ungodly men
turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, sporting
themselves with their own Âˇcfeceivings, having eyes full of
adultery.I The Balaamites, and Nicolaitans, probably,
held some vile theory in relation to morals ; 2 and the immorality referred to in connection with the last of these
was united with pretended inspiration from above and
a knowledge of the depths of God, which, with fearful
irony, are truly designated "depths of Satan." 3
Justin speaks of those who said, that though they were
sinners, yet if they knew God, He wc,uld not impute sin
to them; and, possibly, it might be to such that St. John
alludes, when speaking to people who said," We have no
sin." 4
2. The resurrection was spiritualized so as to exclude
the prospect of what Paul described in the fifteenth
chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. " Shun,"
he says to Timothy, "profane and vain babblings: for
they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their
word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenceus
and Philetus ; who concerning the truth have erred,
saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." 5
3. And further, from the Epistles of St. John, we
clearly gather that some persons speculated on the nature of Christ, so as to deny that He came in the flesh. 6
1

These three branches of '.error relating to law, to the
resurrection, and to Christ, spring from one stem. They
involve a depreciation of what is corporeal in human
nature. They either require the ascetic mortification of
the body as a thing merely cumbersome, or they allow
the abandonment of it to licentiousness, as a thing totally
worthless. Licentiousness and asceticism are contrasts ;
but it is curious how, like forked branches, they proceed
from the same trunk. The human body was thought not
fit to be raised, the soul being better without it. A
Divine Spirit coming upon earth for the deliverance of
man, it was thought, would never assume a body which
entails evil and misery. Yet, though in all this we hold
a clue available for guidance through the perplexing .
labyrinth of early error, we must not mistake it for anything like the whole philosophy of primitive heretical
opinions ; for in them were involved principles and
methods of thought beyond what the most learned have
been able to elucidate.
No student can fail to recognize in such opinions as
these now mentioned the seeds of those elaborate theories
which grew up in after times, and which are grouped
under the generic name of Gnosticism. And this remark
serves to reconcile the idea of those who, like Dr. Burton,
trace the existence of Gnosticism up to the first century,
with the idea of those who date the beginning of Gnosticism in the second. That a form of sentiment so alien
from Christianity should have appeared so soon, may, at
first sight, seem strange, but the strangeness melts
away when we remember amidst what a storm of
excited human thoughts Christianity was born into the
world ; and the few advantages of some early professors
_of the Christian name will quite as much help to

A.D, 100-325.]

Ebionitism.

55

account for their rash mistakes, as for, their remaining
ignorance.
Those who adopted Christianity, not exactly on the
negative, yet on only a speculative side-men "vainly
puffed up by a fleshly mind," unimbued with the docile
and devout spirit of true discipleship, could be expected
to do no otherwise than misapprehend the truth ; and
many such there were who hung on the skirts of the
Christian army, and were merely ecclesiastical campfollowers.
Moreover, it should be observed, that,
among the heresies of the first age, when the nature
of Christ formed a leading subject of speculation, errors
on that subject related to His humanity rather than to His
Divinity. Some denied that He had a human body, none
that He possessed in some sense a Divine Spirit. Those
of the heterodox who admitted the reality of His manhood did not deny the union with it of something celestial.
In the second century, a sect called Ebionites cross
the path of Church history. Perhaps they derived their
name from a Hebrew word signifying poor: at any rate,
they were, for the most part, Jews, though Gentiles
attached themselves to the party. Their system is Âˇ
described as a degradation of Christianity to the level of
Judaism; its fundamental principle being the perpetual
validity of Jewish law, and its temper being determined
enmity to the teachings of the Apostle Paul. Ebionitism
branched out into two divisions, compared to the older
Deistic and the newer Pantheistic Rationalism of
Germany, and also to the two schools of Unitarianism,
the English and the American. 1
1 Schaff's Church History, vol. J. p. 214. . Darner's Doct. of the
Person of Christ, vol. J. pp. 188-217 (Eng. trans., Clark), vol. v,
App., by Dr. Fairbairn, p. 446.

Heretical Dogmas.

[PART I,

Gnosticism, which figures so largely in Church
history, requires more atten_tion. As described by some
writers, this system appears a mass of atrocious nonsense.
On the other hand, some Germans have pronounced
certain of the Gnostics to have been profound thinkers.
The misfortune is, that we have none of their writings
before us, we are dependent for what we know of them
on the testimony of antagonists ; and hence common
sense would lead us to believe, with Lardner, that they
were not such utter madmen as is sometimes represented.
Gnosticism may be reduced into three forms: the
first, in which a heathen element predominates ; the
second, marked by a Jewish temper; the third, tinged
with Christian doctrine. But all are fundamentally in
antagonism with much both in the Old Testament and
the New. It would be useless, in a work like this, to
crowd the page with Gnostic names; we must refer to
works on the subject for details respecting Gnostic
teachers: We will simply refer to the peculiarities of
Basilides and Valentinus - two conspicuous Gnostic
leaders - and then make some remarks on Gnostic
theories in general.
BASILIDES, who flourished at the end of the first
quarter of the second century, maintained that from the
Supreme Good were evolved seven intelligences-understanding, word, thought, wisdom, power, righteousness,
and peace. These gave birth to a second order of spirits,
and the second order to a third, and so on, to the extent
of three hundred and sixty-five orders. God Himself is
the Unnameable; but He manifests Himself through this
hierarchy of emanations. Those of the lowest heaven,
that next this world, framed the earth; the Archon, or

A.D, 100-325.]

Gnosticism.

57

ruler of this band, being the God of the Jews. From
Himself came the Pentateuch ; from His companion
angels, the prophecies. Throughout this world, evil
gathers over good like rust on steel ; but to deliver from
evil, to raise men out of the dominion of the Archon,
the first-begotten .tEon, Nous, or Understanding, descended on Jesus of Nazareth. Basilides "allowed no other
justification than that of advancement in sanctification,
and laid if down that every one suffers for his own sins.
God, he said, forgives no sins but such as are done unwillingly or in ignorance; all other sins must be expiated;
and until the expiation be complete, the soul must pass,
under the guidance of its guardian angels, through one
body after another-not only human bodies, but also those
of the lower creatures." "On this principle Basilides even
accounted for the sufferings of the Man Jesus Himself." 1
VALENTINUS starts from the eternal, primal Being,
and makes thirty .tEons emanate from Him in fifteen pairs;
A6yos and (w1, word and life, are thus produced ; from
them other .tEons spring. The livw XpiO'r6s, upper or
Heavenly Christ, emanates from the .tEon Âľ.ovoyi:v~sthe Karw Xpiur6s, lower or earthly Christ, is sent by the
Demi urge, or world-maker, "through the body of the
Virgin Mary, as water through a pipe ; " and is at last
crucified, but only in appearance, not in reality. "With
Him, Soter, the proper Redeemer, united Himself, in the
baptism in Jordan, to announce His Divine gnosis on
earth for a year, and lead the pneumatic persons to
perfection." 2
At the bottom of all this outlandish speculation there
lay elements of thought common to them and other
1

thinkers. They saw the existence of evil, and some
other mysterious things which they wanted to have
explained. Their maxim was, Not to hinder is to
cause. The Being, then, able to prevent evil, but not
preventing it, is the cause of evil : who is that Being ?
They said, It cannot be God: then it follows that the
maker of the world must be some other power. The
Demiurge, the world-maker, cannot be the only God
-or the supreme God. With the dogma before them
that permission involves causation, their conscience,
which taught them that the true and supreme God must
be good, sought relief from its difficulties in the idea of
some other god being the creator of this terrestrial
system ; but while their perplexed consciences drove
them in this direction, their reason arose and asserted
its righf to be heard, and declared the absurdity of believing in more gods than one ; so it drove them back to
monotheism. Between one system and another, confusion became worse confounded, and the origin of evil
remained in as much darkness as ever. One thing,
however, they held to ; that whether a dualistic or a
monotheistic theory were adopted, matter is thoroughly
corrupt and impure, and the mother of all evil. Other
philosophers before them had the same notion. Hence
the Gnostics looked _upon the world of material nature
as entirely bad. The body is the prison and the foe of
the soul. Only in eternal deliverance from matter can
the soul be pure and free. The men who mingled
Christian names with their speculations, called the God
of the Hebrews-the God who, according to the books
of Moses, made the world-the evil Demiurge. The
recognition in the Bible of creation as very good was
their abhorrence. The material portion of man's nature,

A.D. 100-325.]

Gnosticism.

59

they said, was only evil. The soul that descended from
the supreme and blessed God was imprisoned in the
bo-iy by the Demiurge. The Old Testament saints were
His slaves. Their whole history-was an abomination.
Jesus Christ was a good ÂŁon, a pure benevolent spirit,
emanating from the primeval fountain of Deity, who
came on earth to deliver man, not by living here in a
body of His own (how could the Divine be so united
with matter?), but by descending into another person,
or by assuming a mere fantastic shape. The Gnostics
were conscious of the need of a Redeemer, and thus
perverted the revelation of the only one. They utterly
misrepresented redemption, so far as any of them believed in it. They placed Christianity in opposition
to nature, to nature constituted by the Creator-not to
fallen nature, but to nature as it was at first, looking
on evil as inherent in nature-whereas Christianity is
opposed only to the evil now connected with nature,
that evil arising out of a departure from its true laws
and original constitution. The Christian redemption is
not a departure from it as it was at first, but a returning
to it in its original excellence and beauty. 1
1

Modern critical research has done much toward
presenting Gnosticism to us in a more intelligible light
than that under which it was received by earlier ecclesiastical historians. It enables us distinctly to see the
nature of the contrast between such men as Clement and
Origen on the one hand, and Basilides and Valentinus on
the other. Both brought philosophy and Christianity into
contact with each other ; but the relations sought to be
established between them were of an essentially different
nature. The Fathers endeavoured to Christianize philosophy, to make the latter tributary to the former, to
lay the spoils of ancient thought at the foot of the cross,
and to glorify the Saviour, as did the wise men of the
East, when they presented their offerings of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. But the Gnostics only philos-ophized
Christianity, or rather absorbed into a system of thought,
partly of their own creation, and partly derived from
Greek and Oriental sources, certain elements drawn from
Christian beliefs, which they arbitrarily shaped so as to
serve their own purpose. The Fathers appealed to
Scripture as the primary source whence they derived
their Christian knowledge, and employed what they
received in the way of traditionary reports of primitive
faith, to support and illustrate what they believed they
found in the sacred records. But the Gnostics rejected
the Old Testament; some of them maintained that, as
the work of the Demiurge, it gave a false colouring to
facts, that the patriarchs and saints were men to be
reprobated, and that the real worthies were Cain, the
7. Dorner's Person of Christ, vol. r. pp. 218,251 (Clark).
8. Bunsen's HipjJolytus, 4 vols.
9. Matter's Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme.
10. Baur's Christliche Gnosis.

.A.D. 100-325.]

61

Gnosticism.

men of Sodom, and Korah, with his company; as to the
New Testament, the Gnostics took only such portions as
they liked, showing a preference for the Gospel of John,
upon which they attempted to fasten mystical interpretations. They appealed to esoteric traditions, and to
apocryphal documents, of which were reckoned up a
large number. 1 The Fathers, after all, aimed ultimately
at bringing out the experimental and practical uses of
the Gospel; whilst the Gnostics attempted to" solve some
of the deepest metaphysical and theological problems,''
and looked at the knowledge of such mysteries as the
final end of their endeavours. The Fathers, whatever
allegorical i-llustrations they might base upon Scripture,
held to the historical facts of the Gospels as the basis of
Christian faith; but the Gnostics treated many of them
as mere myths and fables, and distorted them in the
most extraordinary way. There is a reality in the
writings of the one class missed in the system of the
other, of which the highest praise is, that, in its Valentinian form, it presents "a wonderful structure of speculative, or rather intuitive, thought, and at the same time an
artistic work of the creative fancy, a Christian mythological epic." 2 Points of resemblance between the
Gnostics and some distinguished modern teachers are
indicated by one well acquainted with them all. "God
is the unfathomable abyss, locked up within Himself.'â&#x20AC;˘
Basilides would not ascribe even existence to Him, and
thus, like Hegel, starts from absolute non-entity. " Reduced to a clear philosophical definition, the Gnostic
Christ is really nothing more than the ideal spirit of
man himself, as in the Leben Yesu of Strauss." 3 The
1
2

exaltation of philosophy above Scripture, and the substitution of the speculative for the practical; with the
imagined for the real, are broad features of this early
form of thought, which find a resemblance in some
departments of literature at the present time.
There is another system akin to Gnosticism, denominated. Manicheism, from Manes, or Manichceus, its
author, a person presenting some resemblance both t.>
Montanus and to Mahomet. His scheme was a mixture
of Zoroaster's philosophy with Christian truth; and, in
Eastern fashion, he reduced the universe to two elements
-light and darkness, good and evil-but refrained from
the extremely fanciful machinery of Gnosticism. He
looked on man as composed of two souls-one light, the
other dark-whilst the body, because made of matter, is
necessarily evil. He believed that Christ, the great Sunspirit, came to deliver the better nature of man; and,
though excluding all idea of incarnation and atonement,
he represented the Holy Ghost as uniting with Christ in
the redemption of mankind. He taught that the Saviour
had not a material body, but only one appearing as such,
and that the object of His coming into the world was to
teach men their heavenly original, and to urge them to
seek the recovery of lost bliss. 1
With regard to such systems, which adopted certain
portions of Christianity, it may be remarked that they
had in them a subtle spirit, which perhaps, in spite
of controversial opposition, insinuated itself into the
dogmatic teaching of the Church, through the constant
1 See Schaff, Ch. Hist., vol. I. p. 246 et seq., and Robertson,
vol. I. p. 190, and the authorities they quote.
The Histoire
cnÂˇt. de Manichte et du Manicheisme, by Beausobre, and Mosheim's
Comment. de Rebus Christianis should be consulted.

A,D, 100--325.] Âˇ

M anicheism.

discredit they cast on what is material in nature. At
the same time, it is observed, that "it was through the
Gnostics that studies, literature, and art were introduced
into the Church ; " 1 and, what is' more to our purpose,
we may add, that the pressure of heresy on orthodoxy
led the teachers of the latter more carefully to examine
their own system, more precisely to state their own
opinions, and more earnestly to Âˇcontend for the faith
once delivered to the saints. As to Manicheism, it widely
spread in the West as in the East, and it for awhile
fascinated Augustine, in whose day theManichees formed
a numerous sect in Italy and Africa, some secret members being numbered among the clergy.
1

review, it may be observed generally, that it took
the form rather of religious sentiment than of scientific
theology. The distinction between religion and theology,
laid down in my introductory remarks, should be kept
in view in the present investigation, as it will enable us
to reach a more accurate conception of the state of
Christian belief in the early centuries than otherwise we
should attain.
The Divine inspiration and authority of the Gospel
was an object of primary belief, and rested at the foundation of all doctrinal convictions. Whatever uses might
be made of philosophy by the most philosophical divines,
they never dreamt of its being co-ordinate in its claims to
submission with the revelation made by Jesus Christ and
His apostles. The Old Testament was regarded with
profound reverence, as written by inspired men ; and
those which are now the canonical books of the New
Testament were gradually accepted, and at length placed
on the same level of authority. Some writings, at first
treated as inspired, were afterwards separated from the
undoubtedly apostolic works, though they continued to
be employed publicly as well as privately for spiritual
edification. Though no theory of inspiration can be
discovered in early Christian litera,ture, unless something
of the kind be found in Origen, it is manifest that whilst

A.D. 100-325.]

A ntltropology.

what is termed the canon of the New Testament was
being formed, the idea of inspiration was attached to the
substance of apostolic teaching. Tertullian drew an
important distinction between the inspiration of apostles
and the inspiration common to all believers ; and Irenceus
alludes to the extraordinary assistance of the Holy Spirit
granted to the sacred penmen.1
Apostolic traditions secured profound attention, but
they were regarded as confirmatory, or illustrative, of
doctrines found in the sacred books ; in other words, to
be in a line with Scripture, never to be in opposition to
it. The Alexandrian school, though honouring tradition,
did not go the length of Tertullian and Irenceus (we
place Irenceus last, as a more orthodox and conclusive
index of Catholic belief), who spoke as if Christian
doctrine could not be ascertained without consulting the
mother Churches of Christendom. 2
Orthodox Fathers set themselves decidedly against
all innovations upon what they held to be apostolic
doctrines. Argument and authority-the latter more
than the former-were employed on the side of those who
claimed to be the Catholic Church; and the interpretation
of Scripture rested with its rulers. The writings of the
apostles were not forbidden to be read, were not withheld from the people; but individual opinion in opposition
to the predominant teaching of th<:;. Fathers of the Church
was by no means tolerated.
What relates to human nature-or, as it is technically styled, Anthropology-came in for a considerable
share of notice from the Church theologians. All the
1
Tertullian, De Exhort. Castit., c.4; Iremeus, Ad7J. Heer., lib. III.
c. 16, ยง 2.
i Tertullian, Preescnp. Heret., c. 20; Adv. Heer., lib. III. c. 4.
F

66

Lt"nes of Christian Doctrine.

[PART I.

Greek Fathers insisted upon the individuality and
freedom of the human soul, in opposition to fatalism,
perhaps, rather than to what we call philosophical
necessity; and with regard to sin they dwelt almost
entirely upon individual transgression.
Heterodox
thinkers, as we have seen, supposed that matter is the
root of evil ; and even Clement of Alexandria ascribed
the origin of iniquity to sensual appetites. Tertullian
attributed it to impatience, Origen to indolence ; and
there was a general agreement that the moral mischief
of mankind sprung from the human will itself. All
Christians were conscious of their sinfulness, and deplored
it before God ; and the teachers of the Church maintained
the corruption of the human race. It was believed that
the temptation by the serpent in Eden was a real one;
and that the first act of disobedience was a fall from
innocence into degeneracy, guilt, and disaster. Death
and physical evils were counted to be the effect of Adam's
guilt ; but the doctrine of an hereditary tendency to evil
does not make its appearance in Christian literature so
early. Origen thought that the soul had contracted
moral stains in a former state of existence; and Tertullian
thought the soul propagated itself with all its defects, as
matter generates matter; but these were not Church
dogmas. In Tertullian, however, we have the earliest
use of the term original sin (vitium originis); and in a
modified sense he imputed original sin to infants ;
Cyprian acknowledged inherent depravity, and on that
ground defended infant baptism. 1
.
The future, as connected with the end of the world
(Eschatology), powerfully seized on the convictions and
1

vol.

On all these points see Hagenbach, Hist. of DoctnÂˇnes,
pp. I 54-162.

I.

A.D.

100-325.J Eschatology; the Millennium.

67

imagination of the early Church. The second coming of
Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment,
as they were prominent themes of contemplation in the
apostolic age, so they afterwards remained. The glorious
advent of the Redeemer was supposed to be at hand ;
and the resurrection of the same body as is possessed
on earth was taught by most of the Fathers, the Alexandrians excepted. The Hebrew idea of Hades (Sheol)
penetrated the Christian mind, and the full happiness of
the saved, and the full misery of the lost, were referred
to the last day. Some Fathers speak of purifying fires
hereafter, but not in the Roman Catholic sense of purgatory. Origen, as we have noticed, speculated largely on
the future state; but these speculations were his own, and
do not represent the established beliefs of Christendom.1
A millennium, and the bodily reign of our Lord, were
generally anticipated. 2 The Book of Revelation was a
favourite study. Justin Martyr speaks of the elect rising
from the dead, and spending a thousand years with
Christ in the New Jerusalem ; but whilst he asserts it as
his own opinion, and also as that of others, he adds that
some orthodox Christians entertained different views. 3
Irenceus adopted a tradition from Papias, that St. John
had related a prophecy in reference to the unprecedented
fruitfulness of the earth under the millen.nial reign. The
prophecy includes absurd particulars ; and though related
with much confidence, it is not to be considered as having
been generally believed. 4 Lactantius, at the end of his
Institutes, largely refers to the last j udgment and the
millennium, placing the millennium after the judgment,
1
2

and dwelling in fanciful illustrations on an age of peace,
repeating figures employed in Isaiah, and Virgil's Pollio.
He also cites the Sibylline Oracles.
Beyond the details of doctrine just specified, the
belief of the period respecting the end of the world
attests the thoughts and feelings of Christians, and it has
been justly remarked that the renovation of societywhat we call human progress-was not a subject of hope
or speculation to the heathen world ; nor was it so to the
believers of the Gospel in early times. " They expected
no general revival of society through the purer morality
of the Gospel ; no fructifying of the blessed seed in the
bosom of an effete civilization. For such a progress and
result, no time, as they anticipated, would be allowed, for
the end of the world appeared to be at hand; the outward
frame of law and order was only upheld, in their view,
by the continued existence of the empire; stricken and
shaken as that framework was, it could not long endure;
and on its fall would follow the dissolution of the Divine
creation, the conflagration of the universe, the end of all
things." 1
What were the doctrines held with regard to the
salvation of men (Soterz'ology), it is very important to
ascertain.
Three points require to be studied:
I. Redemption.
Faith was the root of religious life.
The earliest creed is an illustration of this. It has
nothing in it propositional ; from beginning to end it is
personal faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost. The whole collection of early patristic literature
shows, that whilst Christ's sacrifice was held and prized,
it did not stand exactly in the relation to Christian
1

Merivale's Romans under tire Empire, vol.

VIIL

p, 368.

A.D. 100-325.J

Soteriology; Redemption.

doctrines which it afterward acquired, for He was thought
of more as filling the throne than as hanging on the
cross ; and if at one time beyond another the faith of the
early Christians appeared strong, it was when, as they
faced death, they thought of the Lord of life and glory.
The theology of the Church is inscribed on the sepulchral
slab : "in pace," " in Christo;" it is pictured in crude
sketches of a shepherd carrying home on his shoulders
the once lost sheep ; but the sufferings and death of
Christ in reference to our redemption were by no means
overlooked. The passage from the Epistle to Diognetus,
already given, may be appealed to in proof of th~s ;
further extracts from ante-Nicene authors might be
cited for the same purpose.
Justin Martyr, who chiefly dwells upon the incarnation and glorious nature of our Lord, speaks of the
remission of sins through the blood and death of Christ,
according to the teaching of the prophet Isaiah: 1
Iren~us refers to the Lord as redeeming us through His
blood, giving His soul for our souls, His flesh for our
flesh, and pouring out the Spirit of the Father for the
union and communion of God and man: 2 Clement of
Alexandria is even more explicit. He always speaks of
redemption as effected by the death of Christ. " Christians are redeemed from corruption by the blood of
the Lord." " The Lord poured forth His blood for us
to save human nature." "The Lord gave Himself a
victim for us." "By His own passion He delivered us
from offences, and sins, and thorns of that kind "-in
allusion to the crown of thorns placed on our Saviour's
head. His interpretation of Isaiah : "The Lord hath
laid on Him the iniquity of us all," is, that the Lord sent
1
2 Adv. Heer., lib. v. c. 1, ยง 1.
Dial. Trypho, ยง 13.:

70

Lines of Christian Doctrine.

[PART I.

Him as the corrector of our sins. On this account, He is
alone able to remit transgressions, being appointed by
the Father of the universe to be our Schoolmaster,
and alone able to distinguish between obedience and
disobedience.1
Origen, too, sets forth Christ as both priest and sacrifice. "He committed no sin, but became for us sin,
through the flesh, that He might bear our sins, and nail
them to the cross. The Immortal dies ; the Impassible
suffers; the Invisible manifests Himself.'' 2 With these and
other like passages before us, it may safely be affirmed
that, in the general belief of Christendom, the death of
Christ expressed the love of God ; that what He endured
was on account of the sins of mankind, and in order to
their removal; that He was emphatically a sacrifice for
us; that His sufferings were truly vicarious ; that He
paid a ransom for us ; and that through His death He
inspires in us eternal life. And here, in passing, we·may
remark how thoroughly must the facts of our Lord's death
and resurrection have been engrafted on the minds of
Christians during the second and third centuries ; how,
as on a central pivot, their religious thoughts revolved
around the New Testament history,-a circumstance
which those who attack the Four Gospels with destructive
criticisms are unable to explain. But our particular duty
now is to show the doctrinal significance which the early
Fathers attached to the death of our Lord. They, for the
most part, regarded it as producing an effect on us and in
us, as cleansing us from the impurity of sin, and inspiring
us with a new and blessed life; but they did not omit to·
look at it also as producing a change in our relationship
to certain evil powers in the universe, and to the law and
1

Kaye's Clement, p. 419.

2

Hom. Levi!., c • .III.

§ I.

A.D. 100-325.]

Soteriology; Redemption.

71

government of Almighty God ; and here we come upon
one of the difficult critical questions in this part of our
history. The term satisjaction 1 occurs in the writings of
Tertullian; but he means by it satisfaction through a
sinner's personal amendment, not through the vicarious
sacrifice of Christ ; therefore his use of the word throws
no light upon what may have been the state of Christian
thought at that time respecting the doctrine of satisfaction, as developed by Anselm at a subsequent perioda subject which, in its proper place, will demand our careful attention. At present, we must confine ourselves to
some passages in the writings of Irenceus and Origen,
bearing upon the doctrine of human redemption through
our Lord Jesus Christ. We had better at once cite the
words of Irenceus :
"Since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and
though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent
God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own
disciples; the Word of God, powerful in all things, and
not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His
own property ; not by violent means, as the apostasy
had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it
insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by
means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who
does not use violent means to obtain what He desires;
so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the
ancient handiwork of God go to destruction." 2
There are two other passages still more obscure, in
which the author speai.::s of the work of Christ in relation
to the evil one, saying, how in the beginning he enticed
1

2

De Pcenit., Â§Â§ 5, 9.
Adv. Ha:r., lib. v. c.

1

(Roberts' s Translation).

72

Lines of Christian Doctrine.

[PART I.

man, and got him into his power ; how necessary it was
that, through man himself, Satan should, when conquered,
be bound with the same chains as those he had bound on
others; how he who led them captive unjustly is justly
led captive himself; and how the falsehood, the apostasy,
and the robbery of the devil has been exposed, the Word
of God conquering him' by means of human nature. 1
These passages have been adduced for the purpose of
showing that Irenceus held some strange theory, to the
effect that satisfaction was made to the devil by the
work of Christ; that the Saviour bought off sinners from
the hands of their oppressor. But the words, very
obscure in themselves, cannot be stretched so as to
cover that absurd theory. Persuasion (secundum suadelam) is what Irenceus insists upon as the means of our
deliverance ; and the question is, whether the persuasion
was brought to bear on man, or on the devil ? An
impartial consideration of the sentence, just quoted in
full, suggests the idea that persuasion here relates to
man, not the devil ; that as false and wicked persuasion
led men astray, pure arid righteous persuasion has
brought them back to liberty and peace.2 At the same
time, it will be seen that the righteousness or justice of
the manner in which our salvation has been accomplished
receives distinct recognition. Redemption, according to
Irenceus, was effected not by force, it was not snatched
away; all was done righteously.
Origen seems to go further than Irenceus, when he
says, in his commentary on Matt. xx. 28: "To whom did
1 Adi,. H{l!r., lib. v. c. 21-24.
2 Archbishop Thomson says, in his Bampton Leet., p. 156: "It is
to lost men, we may be sure, and not to Satan, that the persuasions in
question speak." Dorner takes a like view, in opposition to Baur.Doc!. ef the Person ef Christ, vol. L p. 463.

A.D. 100-325.J

Soteriology; :Justification.

73

He give His life a ransom for many-not to God : did He,
then, to the evil one? For he exercised dominion over
us until the ransom should be given, even the life of
Jesus, though he (the evil one) was deceived as supposing
he could hold dominion over it." Here, certainly, we
find the germ of a strange notion which we shall meet with
again and again in later writers; but let it be observed, that
we find it not in Iren;eus, who does not go anything like
as far as this. Origen starts it, yet rather as a question
than as an assertion, a method of writing very common
with that original, bold, and inquisitive theologian.
Before leaving this subject, it may be remarked that
Lactantius has much to say about the Divine anger against
human sin,in his work on the Wrath of God; he reasons
upon the subject in logical form as against Epicureans
and Stoics ; but we do not find him in that work saying
anything of reconciliation through Jesus Christ : yet, in
the fourth book of his Institutes, he describes the incarnation, person, sufferings, and priesthood of our Lord, and
insists upon His death as opening the way to salvation.
2. :Justification, so prominent a subject in the writings
of St. Paul, could not fail to engage the thoughts of
ante-Nicene divines ; but the forensic view, as it has been
called, is not clearly brought out by any of them. They
distinguish, of course, between forgiveness and sanctity,
and they speak of justification by faith; but they do not
indicate an apprehension of what is involved in modern
controversy on the question. They are apt to confound acceptance and holiness ; they also insist on the
efficacy of baptism, and the merit of martyrdom, so as
to undermine the evangelical principles of grace and
righteousness. Occasionally a passage occurs, seeming
to explain justification as it is explained by later writers ;

74

Lines of Christian Doctrine.

[PART I.

but the connection in which it stands impairs its effect.
For example, few passages seem at first sight so clear as
this in Cyprian : "Every one who believes in God and
lives in faith is found just, and long since, in faithful
Abraham, is shown to be blessed and justified" (Ep.,
63). But the drift of the epistle containing the passage
is against the use of water unmixed with wine in the
Lord's Supper; the passage respecting justification
being incidentally introduced in a paragraph intended
to show that the bread and wine, brought to Abraham
by Melchisedec, prefigured the body and blood of
Christ. Melchisedec's cup, says Cyprian, was mixed
with wine; so was Christ's. The connection of Cyprian's
words, and the general tenor of his epistles,1 show, that
while he believed in salvation by the grace of God, and
by that alone, he had not the same theological idea of
justification which came to be elaborated by certain
subsequent theologians.
Our inquiry here, and throughout our history, is as to
what was in point of fact the belief of the Church at a
particular period ; and we would therefore remark that
with regard to individual salvation by grace, the case
was much the same as with regard to the redemption of
Christ. There was a deep, vital, practical, consolatory
sentiment in the hearts of the faithful, that men are saved
by grace through faith ; but there was not any scientific
definition of what is meant by justification as distinguished from sanctification.
3. Regeneration was a prominent topic. The
tendency of the age was to regard salvation chiefly on
1 There is a passage in Cyprian's De Lapsis, Â§ 12, in which he
speaks ofÂˇ the merits of martyrs and the works of the just as of
great avail at the last day.

A.D. 100-325.J

Soteriology; Regeneration.

75

its moral, experimental side; upon what was done in
man by the grace of God more than upon what was
done for him.
Regeneration is represented by the
ante-Nicene Fathers as a great moral change, affecting
the heart, life, and character of its subjects. It is
an illumination, a purifying, a new birth of the Spirit
of God. The strongest language is employed in reference to it. But it is connected, in the opinion of the
early Church, with baptism, which was regarded not as
a mere rite, not simply as the use of water, but as an
operation of the Spirit of God. Tertullian indulges in
materialistic views of the subject, and revels in the rite
itself; as the bath of salvation, declaring that such as
undervalue the water, "are snakes and basilisks, seeking
after dry places ; " whilst every true Christian is a poor
fish, following 1.X.0.'Y'.~,1 Jesus Christ, being "born in
water, and not safe except when living in water." But
this language is exceptional, and can scarcely be taken
as an expression of the thought of the age.
Justin Martyr, however, is an admitted Church
authority; and he speaks of baptism as the laver of
repentance, the washing of salvation, the spiritual circumcision, the instrument of the new birth. Clement of
Alexandria also connects regeneration with baptism :
" Our transgressions are remitted by one sovereign medicine, the baptism according to the Word. We are
cleansed from all our sins, and cease at once to be
wicked. There is one grace of illumination; that we are
no longer the same in conversation as before we were
washed, inasmuch as knowledge rises together with
illumination, shining around the understanding, and we,
1
Initials of the Greek words for Jesus Chn'st, God's Son,
SaviourJÂˇ spelling together the word for.fish. De Baptismo, Â§ I.

76

Lines ef Christian Doctrint:,

[PART I,

\\-ho were without learning, are instantly styled learners,
this learning having been conferred upon us ; for we cannot name the precise time, since catechetical instruction
leads to faith, and faith is instructed by the Holy Spirit
in baptism." 1 It is plain that Clement did not conceive
of any magical change effected by the water, or any mere
relative change connected with the rite, but a mental and
moral change-illuminating and purifying,-which, whilst
in some way associated with baptism, is also the result
of Christian instruction. He refers in one case to
regeneration "as connected not with baptism but repentance." 2
As to the doctrine of human liberty on the one
hand, and as to Divine predestination on the other, there
do not appear to have been any controversies in the
ante-Nicene Church like those which have subsequently
prevailed. There was a general consensus of thought and
expression amongst the Greek Fathers of the period in
support of the freedom of the human will, and the Latin
Fathers in their own way followed on the same side.3 But
then with this ought to be coupled what we find in their
writings, as already seen, respecting Divine grace through
our Lord Jesus Christ as the source of men's salvation.
As to the doctrine of election and predestination,
developed by Augustine, it had not at the time come
within the circle of theological thoughtfulness ; and it is
in vain to seek after passages in the earliest literature of
Christendom either for or against the doctrine. It is
1 Pa:dago1;us, lib. 1. c. 6.
Other passages on the subject are
cited by Kaye in his Account of the Wn"tings and Opinions of
Clement, eh. xr. There is a large collection of extracts from the
Fathers in Wickes's Baptism.
2 Kaye's Clement, p. 440.
â&#x20AC;˘ 3 See Hagenbach, Hist. ef Doctrines, vol. I. p. 148.

A.D. 100-325.]

Christology.

77

well observed, that what Tertullian says on the subject
"has a closer connection with the questions agitated.in the
schools of philosophy respecting fate and free will than
with the Scriptures." 1 Tertullian tom:hes, however, on
the great controversy when he says: "If nothing happens
but what God wills, God wills the commission of crime;
in other words, He wills what He forbids." 2 This
Latin Father, however, it may be observed, distinguishes
between what God ordains and what God permits, calling
the first pura voluntas, and the second, invita voluntas; 3
in reference to the prediction in Scripture of future events,
he says there is no distinction of time in the Divine mind,
what He decrees, He regards as already accomplished. 4
Clement-to go back to a Greek Father-in his comment on the fourth verse of the Epistle of Jude, "who
were before of old ordained to this condemnation,"
remarks, that they were predestinated not to ungodliness,
but to condemnation as the consequence of ungodliness.
He also makes a distinction between different classes
of the "called," saying" all men are called; but to those
who obey, the appellation of KA.r,Tot alone is given." 5
But above all other doctrinal themes, the person
and nature of Christ (Christology) attracted the attention
of the ante-Nicene Church. In what relation does He
stand to God? All answered, He is Divine. The preexistence and celestial glory of Christ was in some sense
almost universally believed by those calling themselves
Christians. Even theGnostics held the pre-existent nature
of the ÂŁon Christ ; and it cannot be proved that amongst
the heretics of the first two centuries any considerable
number believed in the simple humanity of our Lord.
- 'Kaye's Tertullian, p. 341.
c: 3. â&#x20AC;˘ Adv. Marcion; lib.

3 Ibid.,

III.

" 1 De Exhort. Castitatis, c. 2.
c. 5. 5 Kaye' s" Clement, p. 434.

78

Lines of Christian Doctrine.

[PART I.

Divines of the Catholic Church dwelt upon Jesus
Christ as Son of God. The term Logos was much used
before Origen ; after him, Son of God became the more
common appellation. But the question is, what idea was
attached to that term ? It appears to me, after all which
Bishop Bull and others have written, that the beliefs
of the ante-Nicene Church on this subject cannot be
reduced to one harmonious system. 1
Inquiries into the person and nature of Christ
involved inquiries into the relations of the Divine Father
and Son ; in other words, the doctrine of the Trinity.
The word Trinity, or Triad, came into use through
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 181), though not
perhaps exactly in the present acceptation of the term. 2
Tertullian speaks of " Trinitas unius Divinitatis."
Cyprian also uses the word "Trinitatem. " 3
Doctrine respecting Christ became so involved
with doctrine respecting the Godhead, that the former
cannot be understood but by paying attention to the
latter.
Upon this ineffable subject there ever must be two
directions of thought, one pointing to the unity of the
Father and the Word; the other, to the distinction
between the Father and the Son. They may either
1 Bull's Defence of the Nicene Creed, The Judgment of the
Catlzolic Church of the First Three Centuries, and his Pn"mitive
and Apostolical Tradition, should be studied. DornerÂˇ s Doct. of
the Person of Christ, ranging over the whole field of Christian
literature, is indispensable to the student.
2 Theophilus, in the second book of his treatise, c. I 5, addressed
to Autolycu,, uses the words;'rikrp,aooc roii ewii ,cai roii Aoyov avraii,
,cai rij, "2.o,plac avrov. This is said to be the earliest use of the theological term, Trinity.
3 De Judie., c. 21.
Cyp., .Ep. 73.

A.D. 100-325.]

Christology.

79

come into conflict, or they may be harmoniously adjusted. We trace their existence and operation in the
ante-Nicene period.
A tendency which dwelt uport the unity of the Word
with the Father-sometimes denominated a Monarchian
tendency-may be regarded as represented, in some
measure perhaps, by Justin Martyr, and even by Irena:!us, but in a more decided manner by Clement of
Alexandria. He does not fail altogether to distinguish
between the Father and the Word ; but he is more
copious upon the subject of their Divine union. According to him, the Word "is the harmony of the Father,"
"the rock of the Father," "the arm of the Lord;" God
created the world, and gave the law, and inspired the
prophets, and manifested Himself through the Logos.
He is the image of God, and Divine worship is due to
Him. Yet Clement believed that the Son was inferior
to the Father; and therefore, though he prominently
brought out the idea of Divine union, he avoided the
idea of identification.1
In connection with this line of thought, we may
mention the doctrine of coinherence, 7rEpixwpryaw, or circumincessio, founded on such passages as, "The only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father;"" I
am in the Father, and the Father in Me." 2 Athenagoras
insisted upon this view; so also did Dionysius of Rome. 3
An idea of thorough identification was reached by
Sabellius (about A.D. 2 50); and so extreme were his views
1
On the Monarchian tendency, see Dorner, Person of Christ,
vol. I. p. 260 et seq.
2 John i. 18; xiv. II.
3
Passages by these Fathers to this effect are cited by Bull,
Defensio, Sect. II. c. iv. ; and are repeated by Newman, Arians of
the Fourth Century, p. 173 et seq.

80

Lines of Christian Doctrine.

[PART I.

on this point, that hewas pronounced a heretic,and excommunicated. Unfortunately, we do not possess his writings,
and only know him through the works of unfriendly
critics. Epiphanius, our chief authority, informs us that
Sabellius conceived there were in the Divine nature "one
hypostasis and three designations," which he compares
to the union of body, soul, and spirit; and intimates that
the Sabellians likened the Deity to the sun, its orbicular
substance symbolizing the Father, its light the Son, its
heat the Holy Ghost. 1 Basil tells us that Sabellius
represented the Divine personalities as mere characters
or representations.i Amongst modern commentators on
his theory, Mosheim observes that Sabellius believed a
certain energy or power-a part of the Divine natureto have been united to the man Jesus. 3 Schaff's version of
the system of Sabellius i:s, that the unity of God unfolds
itself in three forms : the Father in giving the law-the
Son in the Incarnation-the Holy Ghost in inspiration. 4
Another tendency-that which distinguished between
the Father and the Word-is represented by Tertullian,
Hippolytus, and Origen. We have space only to notice
briefly the first and third.
,Tertullian wrote against a class of thinkers called
Patripassians-extreme representatives of the Monarchian tendency-persons who so identified the Father
and the Word, as that opponents make it appear as if
the so-called Patripassians believed the sufferings of
our Lord were experienced by the Divine nature of the
2 Ep. 214.
3 De Rebus, 111. ยง 33.
1 Har., LXII. 1.
~ Church History, vol I. p. 293. See also Smith's Biog. Diet., Art.
'Sabellius.' Dr. Newman suggests that there may have been two
forms of Sabellianism, the one running into Patripassianism, the
other melting into an Emanative theory.-Arians of the Fourth
Century, p. 120.

A.D. 100-325.]

Christology.

81

Father. Against such a view Tertullian protested with
all the fiery zeal of his African temperament. He
denounces as absurd and unscriptural the notion that the
eternal and unchangeable One could suffer. And he
goes on to ask, What meaning can Patripassians attach
to the Redeemer's cry, "My God, My God, why hast
Thou forsaken Me?" Engrossed with the distinction
between the Father and Son, Tertullian seems sometimes to have forgotten what he said about the Divine
unity, and to have crossed the orthodox borders into
fields the opposite of those where his opponents
dwelt. 1
We must not look for consistency in this impulsive
writer, nor can we regard him as a safe exponent of
Church views. Origen lies under equal, indeed greater,
susp1c10n. He so developed the side adopted by Tertullian as, in the opinion of some scholars, to pave the
way which led to Arianism. Origen, as Tertullian had
done, used the word Son rather than Logos, and affirmed
that whilst the Father is the absolute, the infinite,
the incomprehensible One, "the primal causality," the
primal beginning and archetype, the Son is not so :
the Father is above the Son, as the Son is above
the world.
Yet Origen represents the Son as the
1 A recent writer has indicated the orthodoxy of Tertullian, and
says : "It is easy to trace every germ of thought which afterwards
came to maturity in the Athanasian Creed. Verse after verse of that
famous creed or hymn, whichever it be, might seem to be derived from Tertullian, occasionally reproducing his very language."
Mossman's History of the Early Church, p. 429. This seems much
too strong : but the author cites some significant passages.
Augustinian phraseology may be traced in the Athanasian Creed ;
and no doubt Tertullian's writings had an effect, direct or indirect,
upon the Bishop of Hippo.

G

82

Lines of Christian Doctrine.

[PART I.

fulness of the Deity, the reduplication of the Divine
glory. 1
Upon this incomprehensible subject it is difficult, if
not impossible, for any man of great acuteness and subtlety to proceed far without laying himself open to the
charge of heresy. The same passages will be taken by
different persons in both a good and a bad sense.
Hence the interminable controversies as to the exact
opinions of this wonderfully gifted but restless theologian. He certainly indicated a tendency and propounded
views which afterwards bore fruit, probably. of a different
kind from what he would have himself approved. It is
quite plain, from our brief review, that, in the mental
activity of the Church during the third century, numerous elements of theological thought were held in solution; and that on the subject of our Lord's nature, and
its relation to the Godhead, no one definite conviction
attained to that position of orthodoxy which came to be
occupied by the decisions of the Nicene age. Yet, at
the same time, this is plain beyond controversy-that
Justin Martyr, Clement. of Alexandria, and the rest,
on one side, with Tertullian and Origen, with the rest on
the other, believed in the Divinity of Christ. They all
believed in the fact that He was infinitely more than
man, that He was one with God. Their only difference
was in the mode of apprehending the mystery.
1 On the whole of this subject, see Dorner, On the Person of
Christ, vols. I. and 11. To give minute references to authorities
would overload the page. Ante-Nicene Fathers spoke of the Son as
generate, the Father as ingenerate; and of the Father as unorigz)iate, a word they scrupled to apply to the Son. Newman, in his
Arians of the Fourth Century, notices at length variations in the
ante-Nicene theological s~atements, p. 181 et seq.

PART II.
FROM THE COUNCIL OF NICLEA
TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
A,D.

325-730.

G 2

85

CHAPTER Âˇ1.
FORMATIVE INFLUENCES.

T

thought, during the period on which we
now enter, appears amidst circumstances different
from those which previously surrounded it. Paganism,
assailed by Christianity from the beginning, had declined in its power and extent, owing to the inroads
made upon it by missionary labours in various lands,
and to the effects produced, wherever Churches existed,
or individual believers were found, by preaching the
Gospel, and by quiet religious influence. The relative
position of Christians and Pagans, in pOi!].t of numbers
and social importance, in the time of Constantine, was
vastly changed from what it had been in the days of the
Antonines. Forms of heretical thought, too, had undergone alteration. Gnosticism no longer, as it once did,
held possession of a number of minds; it no longer
exerted the charm felt in the case of Basilides, Valentinus,
and the rest. Philosophical dreams, imported from the far
East, no longer haunted the imagination of sceptical and
inquisitive thinkers. Persian Manicheism took the place
of Gnostic theories, and lurked in corners, possessing a
remarkable tenacity of life ; it boldly lifted up its head
in the fourth century, and required to be met by other
tactics than those which had been successful in grappling
with the earlier heresy ; for it was more subtle, more
plausible, and was free from the gross ab~urdities of its
HEOLOGICAL

86

Formative Injluences.

[PART II.

predecessor. Even Augustine was for a time carried
away by its dissimulation. N eoplatonism, too, had made
its appearance. It had built a stronghold in Alexandria
in the third century; and it carried on its operations
until the sixth. The effects of the teaching of Plotinus
died (A.D. 262) and Porphyry (A.D. 305) lasted long after
they had gone down to the grave. This philosophy was
mainly engaged in undermining essential evangelical
principles, and in specious endeavours to draw men off
from the characteristic doctrines of the Gospel of Christ
into cloud-lands of mystic contemplation. Anti-Trinitarian opinions came to the front in the fourth century,
giving the Church much trouble, placing it in greater
danger than Ebionitism, Gnosticism, and all put together
had ever done.
Besides all this movement in fields of thought, the
relation in which Christianity stood to the empire came
to be greatly altered. By the conversion of Constantine,
and by the patronage which he and subsequent emperors
bestowed on the Church, the Church found itself in circumstances the opposite of those which had encircled
it from the reign of Nero to the reign of Diocletian.
Emperors, as they happened to be of Trinitarian or
Anti-Trinitarian opinions, caressed their own party, and
persecuted theological antagonists. Orthodoxy did not
always bask in the sunshine of State favour, but at the
beginning of the new era it enjoyed a radiant summer;
and though change after change subsequently came,
and the clouds returned after the rain, the political
weather settled down at length, and became fair and
bright over fields cultivated by orthodox divines.
Of course all this change affected the interests of
theology. It was now no longer needful to. challenge

A.D. 325-730.]

Internal Development.

87

Paganism after the fashion of Justin Martyr and Tertullian ; the age of apologies almost came to an end.
N eoplatonism, as well as Manicheism, had to be met in
a different way from that which served the purpose of
Irerneus and Hippolytus in the Gnostic controversies.
The countenance and support of the State, now given to
one class and now to another, could not but have an
influence-temporary, no doubt-on the struggles of
opinion.
This age of external change was also an age of
internal development.
The facts which prove and illustrate this development
it will be my business to produce. It was a development
of scientific thought as engaged upon certain Christian
truths. The Revelation in the New Testament was
complete. The Canon of Scripture had been closed.
Properly speaking, there can be no development in the
Word of God. Objective truth in the Bible does not
grow. It is an accomplished fact, a thing unchangeable.
But there is room for abundant development in Christendom ; a development of the mind, the heart, the life, the
character of man-sentimental development, ecclesiastical
development, and theological development. Scientific
theology, when sound, is a development of conclusions
from Divine premises. Facts and principles are studied,
arranged, and systematized, evolved in logical inferences,
applied in practical relations. The development is on
the human side, not on the Divine ; it is human, though
under the Holy Spirit's guidance, just as the bursting of
the fruit-buds and the opening of fair flowers, the beauties
of the summer and the riches of autumn, are natural,
though all come by virtue of a Divine energy.
But there are possibilities of error in all human

88

Formati-ve Influences.

[PART II.

development ; the premises may be sound, and the conclusions not so; original inferences may be correct, but
secondary inferences and others more remote may be the
opposite. What is revealed may be transformed; what
does not appear in the Bible may be invented.
There were four theological factors at work during
the period now under review - Canonical Scripture,
the Church System, Ecumenical Councils, and great
Theologians.
I. The Canon of Scripture.-With the exception of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, the two shorter Epistles of
St. John, the Second of St. Peter, the Epistles of St.
James and St. Jude, and the Apocalypse-the books of
the New Testament were acknowledged as authoritative
by the Church generally in the second century. "No one
at present will deny that they occupied the same position
in the estimation of Christians in the time of Iren;eus
as they hold now." In the time of Eusebius there
were three classes of documents-the Acknowledged, the
Disputed, and the Heretical.
He "received as Divine
Scriptures the acknowledged books, adding to them the
other books in our present Canon, and no others." 1
These all came at last to be acknowledged as authoritative writings; and the very hesitation with which some
of them were received betokens the anxiety, even at that
early period, to separate the false from the true, and
therefore in the end enhances the value of the evidence
derived from their ultimate universal adoption.
To the Word of God was assigned a position of
supreme authority by the Nicene Church. Its distinct
utterances were held to be conclusive. Amidst conflicts
' Westcott, On the Canon, pp. 377,488. Eusebius "was undecided
as to the authorship of the Apocalypse."

A.D.

325-730.J

Scripture Canon and Church System.

89

of opinion, all parties appealed to it as to the highest
court, the final tribunal. What Constantine is reported
to have said on that subject at the Council of Nice,
expresses the conviction of the theologians of the age :
" The Gospels, the apostolical writings, the ancient prophets, clearly teach what we are to believe respecting
the Divine nature. Let us then," he added, "drop all
contention, and seek from the inspired words the solution
of our controversies." 1 The Bible was cited by controversialists as of the highest authority. 2 AÂˇnd the study
of it was commended to the faithful as at once a duty
and a privilege: 3 but, at the same time, the Church
was regarded as the great witness to its genuineness
and canonicity. The authority of the Church, indeed,
gradually became mixed up with the authority of Scripture, in such a way as to prepare for the authoritative
traditionalism of after ages. 4
II. The Church system was a powerful factor, both
in the formation and enforcement of theological doctrine.
Views of the Lord's Supper had begun to prevail, which,
though they by no means amounted to the doctrine of
the sacrifice of the mass and of transubstantiation,
prepared for those opinions by the mysterious nature
1

and efficacy attributed to sacraments, and by the real
Divine presence supposed to exist in the consecrated
elements of bread and wine. The Christian ministry
had come to be regarded as a priesthood, occupying a
position of mediatorship, and possessing exclusive rights
of sacramental administration. A hierarchy was growing up out of the original apostolical institution of the
Christian pastorate, with ascending degrees of power,
and corresponding grades of ecclesiastical nobility.
The constitution of the Christian commonwealth had
thereby been greatly affected. The sacerdotal principle
had imperilled, if not destroyed, the rights of the laity in
the Church, and had put aside, if it had not abolished, the
exercise of private judgment. Asceticism had, as we
have seen, found its way into Christian minds, and was
exerting a subtle but energetic influence, by countenancing celibacy and various self-imposed acts of mortification and austerity. To these was attached an idea
of meritoriousness, which ran counter to the principles
of the New Testament. Even Monachism had made
its ;appearance, and the corner-stones were being laid
of those conventual establishments, which afterwards
covered the Eastern and Western worlds. The notion
of one spiritual, invisible, and Catholic Church, together
with many visible, organized local Churches, had been
superseded by different ecclesiastical conceptions ; and
the idea .of one visible universal society, knit together
by episcopal and sacramental bonds, was already distinctly evolved in the writings of Cyprian. He had
laid down the principle of a Church wide as the world,
with every part dependent on a common centre. " She
stretches forth her branches over the universal earth in
the riches of plenty, and pours abroad her bountiful and

Councils.

A.D. 325-730.]

91

onward streams; yet is there one head, one source,
one mother, abundant in the results of her fruitfulness." 1
The Churches of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria were
esteemed in Nicene times as conservators of tradition,
oracles of orthodoxy. They were rising to an ecclesiastical position corresponding with the political ones in
which these cities were placed, relative to the provinces of
the Roman empire, and to the Roman empire at large.
It was impossible that such a state of things could arise
without greatly affecting the development of theological
opinion. It would not affect one class of doctrines so
much as it would affect another. Abstract conceptions
of the Divine nature would not come under its influence
so much as sentiments in reference to the way of salvation, and the operations of Divine grace. The latter could
scarcely be preserved from a determining bias and direction in harmony with the predominating Church system;
and the particular views which this system would tend
to form, it would also materially help to enforce and
propagate, through the authority of the priesthood and
the administration of discipline connected with it: heresy
-by which is to be understood any opinion opposed to
the teaching of the Church-being under the special ban
of the ecclesiastical authorities.
III. Councils were the offspring of the Church system.
Provincial Councils were early held-being assemblies,
Church parliaments, so to speak-composed of bishops
and presbyters, and sometimes deacons. 2 They consulted respecting divers affairs, and bound the people by
their decisions. No Divine authority at first was claimed
for these assemblies. They took their place in the Church
1

2

Cyp., De Unit., ยง 5.
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., vrr. 28.

92

Formative Influences.

[PART II,

as expedient institutions. That they were formed on
the model of political meetings, for which the Greeks
furnished notable examples, is a common and well-sustained opinion. 1 But in the fourth century we reach a
new era in the history of Councils. Provincial Councils
continued to be held; but above them in rank and
authority rose the Ecumenical or Universal Councils, so
called because they were composed of bishops coming
from different parts of the empire, and therefore were
considered to represent the faith of the Church at large.
The meeting at Jerusalem in apostolic times, as recorded
in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, is often referred to
as a precedent for these ecclesiastical gatherings ; but
between it and them such obvious differ~nces are apparent that they can never be properly placed under the
same category.
The first Ecumenical Council was held in the year 325,
at Niccea, a town on the eastern bank of the lake Ascanius
in Bithynia. About two hundred and fifty bishops,
accompanied by presbyters, deacons, and others, crowded
within its gates. The Emperor Constantine provided
horses and mules for their conveyance, and during their
stay entertained them at the expense of the State. They
held their meetings in a church, with an open Bible
before them. When they had closed their conferences
there, they assembled in the royal palace. The emperor,
seated in a golden chair, was addressed in a glowing
panegyric on his attention to ecclesiastical affairs. A
creed was drawn up and signed, to be enforced by imperial authority. Constantine gave the fathers a banquet.
"None of the bishops were absent," says Eusebius. "Guards
1 Mosheim, De Rebus ante Christ., p. 264.
Christianisme, I. 136.

Matter, Histoire du

A.D.

325-730.]

Councils.

93

and soldiers drawn up in order, with naked swords, kept
the vestibule of the palace, and through the midst of
them the men of God passed without fear, and entered
the inner hall.
Some sat with the emperor himself,
others occupied couches on either side. Any one might
have thought it a picture of the kingdom of Christ,
and a dream rather than a reality." 1
The second Ecumenical Council was held at Constantinople in the year A.D. 38 r; but, though called Ecumenical,
it really consisted of only one hundred and fifty bishops,
belonging to the Eastern empire. The third was convened
at Ephesus, A.D. 431, and was composed of about two
hundred bishops. The fourth (A.D. 45 I) met at Chalcedon,
the modern Scutari, opposite Constantinople.
There
were present six hundred bishops, some say six hundred
and thirty. The fifth was gathered in Constantinople in
A.D. 553. The sixth, also meeting at Constantinople,
belongs to the year A.D. 680. The doctrinal decisions of
the most important of these Councils will be given as we
proceed. In the mean while, it may be generally re-.
marked-though the remark is almost superfluous-that
the decisions arrived at in these assemblies could not but
guide and shape theological opinion at the time, and long
afterwards; and let it not be forgotten that the decisions
thus reached were enforced by imperial authority. But
above the influence of Councils themselves must be
ranked that of the men who appeared in the midst of
them, and guided their decisions, and of other men who
in their writings inculcated certain doctrinal views.
IV. Distinguished theologians now claim our attention-to a few of whom alone will our space allow
1

Eusebii De Vita Constant., III. 15. A long description of the
Council will be found in Stanley's Eastern Church.

94

Formative Influences.

[PART II.

more than a very cursory, sometimes only a nominal,
reference.
Amongst the most eminent divines at Niccea, were
Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Marcellus of Ancyra, Eusebius
of Nicomedia, and Eusebius of Ccesarea. But above
them all, if not in influence over the Council, yet in
influence over the Church afterwards, arose.ATHANASIUS
(A.D. 296-373). Though diminutive in person, young in
years, and not admissible to a seat or a vote, he "evinced
more zeal and insight than all, and gave promise already
of being the future head of the orthodox party." 1
Maligned and persecuted to an extraordinary degree
after the Council was over, this champion of orthodoxy
left behind him a reputation for devoutness, fortitude,
purity of life, and even moderation in conduct towards
his opponents, which, now that clouds of prejudice and
misrepresentation have been blown away, shines on the
page of history, and commands the respect and even the
admiration of those who differ from him in some of his
op11110ns. Of his consummate abilities there cannot be
a doubt. Erasmus assigns to him the high quality which
St. Paul specifies in his characteristics of a Bishop, "apt
to teach," being, as he says, lucid, acute, careful, and
expressing himself in a manner fitted for instruction.
Athanasius escaped certain faults as a teacher to be
found in some of the most celebrated Fathers ; and
Gibbon speaks of his "unpremeditated style either of
speaking or writing" as "clear, forcible, and persuasive." 2
The two Cyrils were also conspicuous divines. CYRIL.
Schaff, Hist., vol. III. p. 627.
Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. III. p. 217, Milman's Edit.
See Art. on 'Athanasius,' Smith's Biographical Dictionary.
1

2

A.D. 325-730.J Distinguished Eastern Theologians.

95

qf Jerusalem (A.D. 3 r 5-386) was author of a series of
Catechetical Lectures, consisting of an exposition of the
Church creed, really forming a system of orthodox
theology as it was developed in his day. A moderate
man, and averse to speculation, he fell under the suspicion
of some zealous partisans on the Athanasian side; but his
writings furnish no proof whatever of his holding heterodox opinions. CYRIL of Alexandria (bishop A.D. 412-444)
was a different man from his namesake. His life appears in a most unamiable and even unrighteous light;
though vaunting his orthodoxy, he has been accused
of heresy, and though a most active and influential
teacher in his day, his works now are pronounced
almost worthless.
The fame of JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, A.D. 347-407, successively Bishop of Antioch and Constantinople, rests on
his eloquence as a preacher and his labours as an expositor
-labours more remarkable, in my opinion, for popular
impressiveness and practical force than for accurate
exposition of the meaning of the New Testamentthough it must be admitted, as a very great merit, that
he avoided the Âˇpractice of allegorical interpretation.
As a doctrinal theologian, he does not take rank with
some others of the same period ; but his influence as
a p:i.stor and a preacher gave great effect to all his
teaching.
Two Gregorys appear as prominent theologians of
the fourth century. GREGORY of Nazianzum (A.D. 329389), son of a distinguished bishop of the same name, was
famous for his learning, eloquence, and zeal for the Nicene
Creed. His friendship with Basil, Bishop of Cesarea,
forms one of the most beautiful episodes in ecclesiastical
history, and is well worthy of the student's attention.

Formative Influences.

[PART II,

He was a poet as well as a preacher ; and his doctrinal
discussions are marked more by pulpit rhetoric than by
profound reflection or argumentative force. Something
like a system of doctrine may be found in his Orations on
Theology-the first being directed against the Eunomian
Arians ; the second being occupied with the being and
nature of God ; the third and fourth dwelling on the
generation of the Son; and the fifth relating to the Holy
Spirit. The arrangement of topics, so far, corresponds
with that in Origen's De Principiis. GREGORY of Nyssa
(A.D. 33 r- 394), the younger brother of Basil, as "a pillar
of orthodoxy was only inferior to his brother and his
friend ; " and he appears among the most active and influential members of both the first and second Councils
of Constantinople. Amongst his works are some which
exhibit a systematic treatment of divinity. A discourse
On the Formation of Man, in thirty chapters, is a treatise
on man's creation, his relation to "the palace of the world,"
and his powers and capacities-the author indulging his
imagination on this subject somewhat after the manner
of John Bunyan in his description of Mansoul. Gregory
of Nyssa also takes up the history of the Fall, and then
dilates at great extent upon the resurrection of the body.
He also gives us lectures on the Lord's Prayer, and a
work against the Eunomian Arians-thus resembling his
brother. His Catechetical Discourse is a sort of Manual
for Catechists, showing them how to fulfil their office,
and indicating Scripture proofs of the Divinity of Christ
and the Holy Spirit, and of the means of salvation
purchased by the Redeemer's death. Baptism and the
Eucharist come in for ample discussion, and the doctrine
of a real presence in the latter is plainly asserted. 1
l

See e.

XXXVII.

A,D.

325--730.]

Western Theologians.

97

Our list might be enlarged, but we must pass from
EastÂˇ to West.
There we are met by HILARY of Poictiers, who died
about A.D. 368. He fought his Way through intellectual
difficulties before he reached the full apprehension of the
truths of Christianity, and in his case, reason, illuminated
by religion, won a great victory. He commenced, like
some others, with a vague faith which did not suffice to
meet his spiritual wants. Then, inspired by an absorbing
desire to know God, he found in the sublime words recorded by Moses," I AM THAT I AM," a revelation of the
Infinite One such as he had not apprehended before. It
satisfied his intellect and his heart. The Christian Scriptures opened up to him the doctrine of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost, as engaged in the salvation of
fallen creatures. He wrote a treatise on the Trinity, a
very elaborate work in twelve books. The first is a
copious prologue; the second takes up the subject in a
general way ; the third relates to the Eternal Sonship ;
the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh deal with the Sabellian
and Arian heresies ; the eighth proceeds with the doctrine
of our Lord's consubstantiality; the ninth discusses the
union of His Divine and human nature ; the remaining
three answer objections. 1 Hilary energetically resisted the
inroads of heresy on the Gallic Church, and reproduced
in Latin the thoughts of Athanasius and other Greek theologians. It is said by a German critic, "Hilary holds a
most important place in the development of Christology,
and his massive analysis contains fruitful germs which in
succeeding centuries have been only in part developed ;
profound and comprehensive thoughts, the stimulating
and fertilizing power of which reaches down even to our
1

The work fills 450 columns in Migne's edition.
H

Formative Influences.

[PART IIÂˇ

own time; nor need our time be ashamed to learn
from this ancient master, as well as from other teachers
of that age." 1
AMBROSE (A.D. 340-397), once Pr~torofUpper Italy,
was forced into the episcopal chair of Milan ; and he
brought to bear upon his diocese that habit of maintaining discipline which he had learned in his secular offices.
His character, in some of its lights and shades, may
be seen in the following eulogium : "With voluntary
poverty he associated the strictest regimen of the ascetic
spirit of his time ; accepted no invitations to banquets ;
took dinner only on Sunday, Saturday, 'and the festivals
of celebrated martyrs ; devoted the greater part of the
night to prayer; to the hitherto necessarily neglected
study of the Scriptures, and the Greek Fathers, and to
theological writing ; preached every Sunday, and often
in the week ; was accessible to all, most accessible to the
poor and needy ; and administered his spiritual oversight,
particularly his instruction of catechumens, with the
greatest fidelity."
The works of Ambrose may be divided into annotations; theological and moral treatises; and miscellanies,
including sermons, epistles, and hymns. His principal
dogmatic works are on Faith, the Holy Spirit, and the
Incarnation, in which he goes over the usual Nicene
ground of discussion respecting the unity of God, and the
Divinity and eternal generation of the Son. He contends
that our Lord had a human body, mortal like ours, and
a human soul, rational like ours.
HIERONYMUS, or JEROME (A.D. 340-420), rises. above
the other Latin Fathers in learning and critical skill.
With all his faults, he stands unrivalled as a translator and
1

Kling, quoted in Schaff, Eccl. Hist., vol.

m. p. 961.

A.D. 325-730.]

Western Theologians.

99

expositor; and to him belongs the honour of forming, by
means of his Vulgate version, the Latin language of
medi~val Christendom. A sentence in his preface to
Isaiah gives point to this commendation, and holds him
up as an example to ourselves: "He who does not know
the Scriptures does not know the power and wisdom of
God; ignorance of the Bible is ignorance of Christ." His
epistles present a lively image of his own times, and afford
ample materials for the historian in search of picturesque
characters and incidents.
He wrote a life of Paul the Hermit, containing the
most marvellous stories, and another of Malchus, a
captive monk, who related to the author an account of
his sensational adventures. Jerome plunged into controversy with J ovianus and Rufinus, and evinced an unpardonable violence and bitterness against these and all
other antagonists. The Benedictine edition of his works
extends to five volumes folio; but it includes no systematic treatises on Christian doctrine. His opinions
must be gathered from his commentaries, epistles, and
controversies.
AUGUSTINE (A.D. 354-430), whose writings fill
eighteen volumes in the Benedictine edition ( I 807 )-a
profound and subtle thinker, a keen and bold logician,
yet with a mystical element in his capacious mind-was
a courageous advocate of the doctrines of grace, and a
forcible preacher, as well as eminent bishop. His faults
were those of his age-asceticism and intolerance ; his
influence, great in his own day, continued to affect, perhaps in an unparalleled degree, the conclusions of thinkers
throughout the Middle Ages ; and the overthrow of the
dominion of Aristotle in the Church at the time of the
Reformation left that of Augustine almost untouched.
H2

100

Formative Influences.

[PART II.

Through Luther, Calvin, and others, the moulding power
of this great man's thoughts has been handed down to
modern times; and still, directly and indirectly, he is
shaping the dogmatic opinions of many in the Church of
Christ. It is impossible to estimate his theology without
studying the history of his heart-that history which he
vividly records in his Con/essions. 1 There we see his
anguish for sin; his longing'! for deliverance; his bondage
for a while to the errors of Manicheism; his trial of Plato ;
his conversation with friends; his prayers and cries under
the fig-tree in his garden at Milan; and the effect produced
at last by a child's voice repeating Tolle lege, as his eyes
fell on the Epistles of Paul, from the reading of which he
saw that the putting on of Christ was the secret of salvation. Believing that God leadeth the blind by a way they
know not, we should recognize a connection in the case
of Augustine between experience and theology, between
spiritual life and doctrinal thinking, and discover, in the
best part of his writings, not a mere scholastic theory,
but an evangelical faith, born in a struggle between life
and death.
VINCENTIUS, a monk, of Lerins, or Lirinum, hence
generally known as Vincentius Lerinensis (died about
A.D. 450), requires to be mentioned, not on account of
any contribution he made to the literature of either particular doctrine or of systematic theology, but because,
in his Commonitorium, he laid down the famous Canon :
"Ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab
omnibus creditum est," 2 "That we maintain what has
been believed everywhere, always, and by all." The
1

treatise was composed about A.D. 434, just after the
Council of Ephesus, and was intended to be a general
safeguard against heresy; but it is amongst the curiosities of human opinion, that the'manÂˇwho laid down this
law, so eagerly taken hold of by certain divines,1 sensible
of the difficulty of applying it, is himself charged with
being a semi-Pelagian: passages in the Commonitorium
being alleged as evidence of this.
As, unlike most other of the writers now enumerated,
Vincentius will not come under our notice again, it is
convenient here to remark, that he sought to reconcile
with the principle of the Church's unchangeable faith a
theory of development, which has since been maintained
by others who profess adherence to his maxim. 2 He
contends that there may be an advance which is not
change, but only increase; as when a child becomes a
man he does not lose his identity. At first the limbs
are small, then they become large ; but they remain the
very same limbs they were before. Their number is the
same; their uses are the same. If they were altered
into types of a different species, or if their number were
multiplied, the body would be destroyed or become
monstrous. So Christianity follows the laws of growth. 3
There is a sense in which, no doubt, this illustration may
be accepted and applied to legitimate developments of
theological science, such as are indicated in previous passages of this work. How exactly Vincentius would have
applied his rule to doctrines broached in after ages, it is
impossible to say ; but assuredly he would have found
1

it amazingly difficult to. harmonize certain dogmas,
afterwards authorized by the Church, with the standard of what has been believed everywhere, always, and
by all.
Âˇ
GREGORY the Great must not be omitted in our enumeration, as he is the" Fourth Doctor of the Catholic Church"
-Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome being the other three;
Born in or about A.D. 540, he died in 604. Yet though of
pre-eminent fame, he was more an expositor, and a writer
of sermons, dialogues, letters, and hymns, than a systematic or scientific divine. His Homilies on the Book of
Joh, in which he finds a threefold sense, are historical,
mystical, and practical, rather than doctrinal, though
numerous dogmatic passages occur, running close to the
lines struck out by Ambrose and Augustine.

103

CHAPTER II.
THEOLOGICAL RESULTS.

F

amongst the theological developments of
the age was the A tlzanasian controversy. There is a
great deal in its external history unpleasant and repulsive. The interference of Constantine was far less that
of an earnest searcher after truth than tha\ of a shrewd
statesman seeking to reconcile contending parties, with
the hope of managing them for his own purposes. There
were political intrigues on both sides mixed up with the
dispute from beginning to end. The Arians made it a
personal matter, seeming to be chiefly anxious to damage
the character of Athanasius. The Athanasians often
manifested a bitter disposition in opposing the Arians.
It is wearisome to read accusations and replies relating to
circumstances which have nothing to do with the main
question at issue. Opponents had little respect for one
another's persons, and civil disturbances occurred in
connection with the angry strife. The Arians on one
occasion marched about the piazzas of Constantinople
at night singing hymns; the Athanasians, with silver
crosses and wax tapers, went out to meet their rivals; a
struggle ensued, stones were thrown, blood was spilt, and
the riot disturbed and frightened the peaceful citizens.
Turning to look closer at the disputants, one can see
in them the faults of human nature. Like controversialists in other ages, not excepting our own, some were
stern, apt to be dogged ; some rash, apt t_o be changeful ;
OREMOST

104

Theological Results.

[PART II.

some peace-loving, apt to seek quietude at the price of
truth. All were, in the heat of argument, prone to charge
their own inferences upon their antagonists,and so to make
them responsible for much more than they were prepared
to admit. Yet, to take no higher view, there is something
to redeem the controversy in the thought of what is
counted its reproach. "What strife about ideas ! " is the
utilitarian's taunt. Be it that Nicene polemics were
about ideas ; that is a sort of contention showing the
superiority of men over animals. Dogs will fight for a
bone ; only intelligent beings will contend for ideas.
But they ill understand the Nicene controversy who see
in it a question of mere ideas; much less do they perceive
what it was, who call it mere logomachy. It had to do
with a fact-an infinitely important fact, if there ever was
one.
ARIUS-an old man in A.D. 336, described as austere
and ascetic-said that Christ was a creature; that He
had not existed from eternity ; that there was a period
when He was not. He" perceived beyond all question,
that from the very conception of a creature an infinite
distance must be inferred between him and the Creator;
nor did he shrink from expressing this."
The following extract from a letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia, explains his view : "But we say and
believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is
not unbegotten, nor in any way unbegotten, even in part ;
and that He does not derive His subsistence from any
thing subjacent; but that by His own will and counsel
He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect
God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that He
existed not before He was begotten, or created, or determined, or established. For He was not unbegotten.

A,D,

325-730.]

Arius and Athanasius.

105

We are persecuted because we say that the Son had a
beginning, but that God was without beginning. We
repeat it-for this we are persecuted, and also, because
we say that He is from nothing. And this we affirm,
because He is neither part of God, nor of anything subjacent." 1
Turning from this statement of the opinions of Arius,
we cannot do better than at once open the Orations of
Athanasius against the Arians. After an introduction we
find him citing extracts from a work entitled Thalia, in
which Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the
Son did not always exist, but arose from nothing ; that
He was created, that He was made, that we might be made
by Him ; that He was not very God, but was foreign in
substance from the Father; that the Son does not know
the Father, and does not know Himself. This occupies
the second chapter. In chapter III. Athanasius states
the Catholic doctrine: "We say very Son of the Father,
natural and genuine, of His proper substance, wisdom;
only begotten, and the true and only Word of God is
He; not a creature or a work, but the proper offspring
of the Father's substance. Wherefore He is true God,
of one substance (oÂľoov<no<;) with the Father; while
other beings, to whom He said, 'Ye are gods,' had this
favour or privilege only from the Father, by participation
of the Word through the Spirit." The Son ever was and
is, and never was not. The Father being everlasting, His
Word and His wisdom must be everlasting. In chapters
IV., V., VI. Athanasius proceeds to contend that the Son
is eternal and uncreated. He refers in his proofs, first to
direct texts of Scripture; then he proceeds to support the
doctrine of the Son's eternity by.insisting on the nature
1

The expression is ,rpou1mÂľs11ov

rwo~,

Theodore!, lib. I. c. v.

106

Tlzeological Results.

[PART II.

of sonship itself. The word Son, he says, is to be
understood in a real sense. Christ is God's offspring ;
and as eternity is the nature of the Father, so it is the
nature of the Son. The generation of the Son is regarded by Athanasius, not as a passing act, but an
eternal and unchangeable fact in the Divine essence.
Eternity evidently appeared to him, not: as mere unending duration, nor even as unbeginning existence, but as
perfect, absolute, infinite, and unchangeable nature or
essence. The Son, he maintains, participates in the
whole nature of the Father. If the Father be eternal
in His nature, so also is the Son. Further proof of the
Son's eternity is drawn from Scripture passages indicative
of His consubstantiality, as Creator; as One of the blessed
Trinity; as the Wisdom of God, the Word of God, and
the image of God. Men are not real fathers and real
sons, Atha'nasius says, but shadows of the true; the
essence and type of such relationships is Divine.
Chapters VII., VIII., IX., X. contain answers to objections. They are couched in an abstract, metaphysical
style, and are sometimes very difficult to understand.
In reply to the question, " Why does not the analogy of Âˇ
human parents and sons apply to the Divine case, i. t.
that sons are born after their parents ? " he says, The force
of the idea of sonship lies in con-naturality, not in succession; time is not involved in the notion of sonship; it
is adventitious, and it does not attach to God at all,
because He is superhuman. After noticing difficulties,
Athanasius returns to Scripture arguments in support of
his main position.
The Divinity and Incarnation of our blessed Lord
constituted, in the thoughts of the Nicene Church, the
central fact of Christianity; and Athanasi us stood forward

A thanasius.

A.D. 325-730.]

107

as the champion of the Redeemer's proper Godhead.
While Arius asserted the inferiority of the Son to the
Father, Athanasius asserted His equality, and for the expression of this fact used the word oÂľoov,no~. This term
became the watchword and badge of the orthodox party.
The expression seems to us uncouth, though it would
not appear so to Greeks ; certainly it is not found in
Scripture; it looks like an attempt to define what i.s undefinable; but taking it as the symbol of the Deity of
the Lord Jesus, we recognize under it a truth, which,
apart from metaphysical refinements and dialectic disputes, is plainly written on the pages of the New Testament in connection with the fact of His sacrifice and
mediation. There are persons who talk flippantly of the
controversy as employed about a mere scholastic term; 1
but that only shows how very unphilosophical some
pretended philosophers can be ; for the controversy
was really no less than this-Was Christ a creature,
or was He uncreated? Was He God, or one of the
works of God ? A whole universe lies between the two
views.
This dispute wa:s the development of doctrinal tendencies previously existing. The Logos had been the
central idea of scientific theology, so far as such theology
existed among ante-Nicene Christians. The Greek
Fathers, who had speculated and argued upon the matter
and attempted to define with exactness the Divine nature
of Christ, had leaned some to one mode of expression
and some to another. Terms and illustrations at least
akin to, or identical with, the Arian, were employed by
some, while terms and illustrations akin to, or identical
with, the Athanasian, were employed by others.
1

See below, p.

II I.

l08

Tlzeological Results.

[PART II.

Historians, as already noticed, connect Arianism with
Origenism ; but it is remarkable that the Arian party
did not affiliate themselves to the great Alexandrian
teacher. They do not appear to have appealed to his
authority till thirty years after the rise of their heresy ;
while Athanasius called Arius an imitator of Paul of
Samosata. Origen has been defended against the imputation of preparing the way for Arian opinions, on the
ground that he is "the very first writer to detect for us
and to denounce the Arian tenet at least sixty years
before it openly presented itself to the world." 1
No doubt in this, as in other cases, manifold influences
concurred in producing a single result. Judaizing tendencies, especially as they operated in the Church of
Antioch ; the schools of the Sophists, encouraging habits
of disputation ; Alexandrian speculations, fed and nourished by a spurious Platonism ; the principles of the
eclectic sect, and their aversion to theological mysteries
-these and other influences were favourable to such a
system as Arianism proved itself to be ; and they probably contributed more or less to originate and to inspire Âˇ
it. 2 Moreover, Arius and his followers were greatly
aided in their enterprise by imaginative cleverness, technical distinctions, and appeals to popular judgment,
"which is often destitute of refinement and delicacy, and
has just enough of acuteness of apprehension to be
susceptible of sophistical reasonings." 3
Athanasius's system was a scientific and definite
development of the doctrine of Christ's Divinity, as
generally believed by the Fathers. With regard to maizy
of them, it has been satisfactorily proved by Bull, that
1
2

their views were substantially expressed in the Nicene
Creed. According to most convictions of Scripture
teaching, that teaching was followed in the main by the
great Nicene and ante-Nicene Fathers, but many persons
will disapprove of their speculative way of treating the
subject of the Trinity.
Two Greek words, oiicr(a and v1T6crracri,;;, frequently
occur in the controversies of that day relative to the
nature of the Father and the Son : because of their being
equivalent to each other, and yet employed as indicating
different ideas, considerable confusion and apparent
contradiction arose. Athanasius used v1Tocrracri,;; as equivalent with oiicrCa, meaning substance or essence. He
dwells much upon the consubstantiality of the Son, or
the identical essence of the Son and of the Father; and
to denote this he employed the word v1r6crracri,;;. He puts
together the two words as denoting the same idea, saying, "As there is one origin, and therefore one God,
so one is that oi!crla Kat v1T6crracri,;;," 1 The word v1T6crra<TL'>,
in the sense of person, does not occur in the works of
Athanasius; neither does the Latin equivalent, persona,
occur in the earlier works of Augustine. How he came
to adopt it in that sense, he describes in his work on the
Trinity. 2 He was overcome by necessity, being required
to use some terminology to indicate the distinction between Father and Son ; and no other appearing so
good as this, he adopted it. Chrysostom also employed
this kind of phraseology, distinguishable from that of
Athanasius. "He uses the word substance, oiicr(a, to
1 Orationes quatuor contra Arianos, IV. 2. See what Newman
says on this question, Arians of the Fourth Century, Appendix,
note iv.
~ Lib. V. ยง 9 ; VIL ยง 4.

I IO

Theological Results.

[PART II.

designate the essential nature; and person (1nr6urn<ns),
the personality of the Godhead; and he points out that
words which relate to the ovuta, as' Lord' and 'God',
are applied to all the Persons ; whereas the other terms,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, indicating distinction of
personality, are each applied to one Person only in the
Godhead." 1
It ought to be stated, that the language of the Arians
sometimes approximated closely to that of the Athanasians ; but a Greek intellect could detect the difference
between them: in some cases, however, Arianism asserted
itself boldly without the least disguise, and no attempt
was made to soften heterodox opinions. Aetius and
Eunomius, for example, expressed the distinction between the Father and the Son so strongly as to declare
the Son unlike the Father (dv6Âľoios Kar' ovutav), whence
those who adopted such phraseology came to be called
Anoma:ans.
Beside the Arian and the Athanasian parties, there
was a third class, if that may be called a class which was
composed of very different characters. We refer to the
semi-Arians, as they are commonly termed. The only
bond of union that existed amongst them was a negative one; they all disapproved, more or less, of the
course pursued by Athanasius. Many of them had a
strong personal dislike to the man ; but they were far
1 Stephens, Life of Chrysostom, p. 419. A want of precision .
in language with regard to this subject is noticeable in connection
with the Council of Alexandria. There, it appears, were some
who spoke of three v-iroura11E1i; in the Deity, and some only of one
v-ir611ra111c-the former using the word in the sense of person, in
opposition to the notion of a nominal Trinity ; the other, as
synonymous with ov11la, in opposition to Arianism : both parties
were pronounced orthodox.

A,D. 325-730.]

Eusebius of Nicomedia.

III

from being all opposed to his opinions substantially
considered. Some of them, indeed, seem to have been
anxious for a compromise. Without being earnest
theologians, they became mixed up in political intrigues
which disgraced the controversy.
Eusebius of Nicomedia was chief amongst them. He
espoused the cause of Arius, although he subscribed the
Nicene Creed. He adopted the word liµoiov,nos, "homoiousian," "like," in distinction from dµoov,nos, " homoousian," " the same."
Gibbon remarks, in the 21st chapter of his History,
that this word, chosen to express the mysterious resem blance between the Son and the Father, bears so close
an affinity to the orthodox symbol, that the profane of
every age have derided the furious contests which the
difference of a single diphthong excited between the
Homoousians and the Homoiousians. This remark, taken
by itself, might convey to some the idea that the word
homoiousian was the common Arian symbol, as the word
homoousian was the common orthodox one. But this
idea is not correct. Indeed, if the whole paragraph in
Gibbon be read, it appears that he did not intend to
convey it. A similar word is used in reference to
Christ's nature even by Athanasius ; 1 and Gibbon relates
with a sneer that Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, endeavoured to prove, that by a pious and faithful interpretation, the Homoiousian may be reduced to a consubstantial
sense. No doubt the term may be so interpreted; and in
a sense very nearly approaching the Nicene symbol it
was adopted even by Eusebius of Nicomedia. SemiArians-not full Arians-employed it as a badge, and
1

See note(!) respecting the word 0µ016rqra, p. 31 r of the Oxford
translation of Athanasius's Treatt'ses.

I Il

Theological Results.

[PART II,

some semi-Arians assimilated themselves closely to the
Athanasian party. Eusebius, it should be stated, objected
to the anathema of Nic;:ea against Arius, not because he
differed from the doctrine as settled at Niccea, but because
he doubted whether Arius really held what the anathema
imputed to him. 1 We are now speaking of opinions, not
of character. The character of Eusebius of Nicomedia
will not bear investigation : still the word which he and
others used did not necessarily bear a heterodox sense.
Certainly it was not distinctively Arian in its meaning.
Indeed, the term 01.wwiJcno~ was objected to by the decided
Arian party rather than by the Athanasian ; and at the
second Council of Sirmium (A.D. 357) the former rejected
the homoiousian as well as the homoousian doctrine. 2
At a synod assembled at Ancyra (A. D. 358) the homoiousian doctrine was confirmed, and the Arian rejected. 3
The courtly historian, Eusebius of Ccesarea, was
classed amongst the semi-Arians, for he often sided with
that party, though he signed the Nicene Creed. If we
may use modern language, we might say of the divisions
at that time, that Athanasius and the bishops who agreed
with him were the Extreme Right-and Arius and his
friends the Extreme Left; whilst the Left Centre was
represented by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the Right
Centre by Eusebius of Cesarea.4
Before terminating this account of the Nicene controversy, it is proper that we should say a word respecting
the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. There is but a brief
1 Sozomen,

reference to it in the Creed, indicating that it did not
occupy such a prominent place in the thoughts of the
Church as was filled by the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity.
Athanasius distinctly affirms the hypostatical character
and proper Deity of the Holy Ghost. He refers to passages of Scripture, and also adduces this argument : "How
can that which is sanctified by nothing but itself, and which
is itself the source of all sanctification for all rational
creatures, be of the same species of being, the same kind
of essence, with that which is sanctified by another than
itself?" In other words, how can the Holy Ghost, who
sanctifieth the human soul, be of the same nature as the
soul itself? It must be higher and nobler. In and by
the Holy Ghost the creature, he says, obtains communion
with God, and participation in the Divine life ; but this
could not be the case if the Holy Ghost was Himself
a creature.1
The Athanasian controversy produced numerous
creeds and counter-creeds. Those on each side resembled
each other. But it is needless here to do more than
notice two, which st~nd out beyond all others on the
orthodox side for value and importance. The first of
these is the world-known Nicene Creed. "We believe
in one God, Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible
and invisible : and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, Only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the essence
of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of
very God, begotten, not made; of one essence with the
Father, by Whom all things were made, both in heaven
and earth : who for us men, and for our salvation,. came
down, and was incarnate, and was made man, and suffered,
1

III.

For further information on this subject see Schaff's Hist., vol.
p. 663.

I

Theological Results.

14

[PART II.

and rose again on the third day, and ascended into the
heavens, and shall come again to judge the quick and
dead. And (we believe) in the Holy Ghost. But the
Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes those
who say that there was a time when the Son of God was
not; that He was not before He was begotten ; that
He was made from things which were not; that He is of
another substance or essence; that He was created and
is liable to change." 1
This was the grand manifesto of doctrine, issued by
the Council of Niccea, and a standard of orthodoxy down
to this day.
But another creed of later date, the same in many
respects, not the same in other respects, though frequently
taken to be identical with it, requires our attention. It
has been called the Nicceo-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Much obscurity hangs over its origin. Bingham and
others have hastily despatched the subject by saying
that the Nicceo-Constantinopolitan Creed is " no other
but the Nicene Creed, with the addition of such articles as
were always used by the Church in the interrogations of
baptism, though not inserted in the particular form used
by the Nicene Council." This statement is unsatisfactory.
The Council of Constantinople, noticed on a former
page, at which this creed is said to have been adopted,
was held in the year A.D. 38 I. Its history is very perplexing. Seven canons are the only unquestionable
record of its proceedings known to exist. In the first of
these it is said," The Holy Fathers have declared that the
creed of the 318 Fathers, who assembled at NicceaÂˇ, of
Bithynia, be not abolished, but that it remain firm." 2
1
2

Not a word is said of any alteration or addition; the
Nicene Creed is simply confirmed. The account of the
revised creed as originating at Constantinople depends on
the unsupported statement of aÂˇ deacon, named Aetius,
made by him seventy years afterwards, at the Council of
Chalcedon, A.D. 45 r. That statement seems open to
grave suspicion ; 1 and it is probable that the creed does
not come directly from that Council, or from either of
the Gregories, to whom some have ascribed it ; but that
additions were gradually made to the Nicene symbol,
according to orthodox views developed in the course of
the controversy. 2
The creed denominated the Nic~o-Constantinopolitan runs as follows :
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and
invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all worlds
(ceons), Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten
not made, Being of one substance with the Father; by
Whom all things were made ; Who for us men, and for
our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was
made man : He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried ; and on the third day He
rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into
the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father,
and cometh again with glory to judge the quick and
the dead ; of Whose kingdom there shall be no end.
1 The whole subject is carefully discussed in Dr. Swainson' s
learned and able History of the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds,
Chapter VIII,
s Schaff's Ch. Hist., vol. m. p. 667.

I 2

II6

Theological Results.

[PART II.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who
proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and
the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake
by the prophets. In one holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission
of sins ; we look for the Resurrection of the dead, and the
life of the world to come. Amen."
Upon bringing the so-called Nicene and Nic~oConstantinopolitan Creeds together, certain things are
worthy of notice. The difference between them consists
both in omissions and additions. The words, " that is of
the essence [ovcrfo,] of the Father," and "God of God," which
occur in the first creed, are dropped in the second ; and
the damnatory clause with which the first terminates is
omitted in the second. Again, in the latter, "was incarnate by tlze Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary," "under
Pontius Pilate," "according to the Scriptures," "sitteth
on the right hand of the Father," are new expressions.
So is all which follows the name of the Holy Ghost.
The resemblances are obvious. The word Trinity occurs
in neither of them. Nor is there any word introduced
expressive of the idea of person; the word inrocrrarrEw,,
used in the damnatory clause of the Nicene Creed, being
equivalent to ovcr{a,, and meaning what is commonly
understood by the term essence, or substance. The word
liÂľoovcrwv, of the same substance, is employed in both.
The ftlloque clause, as it is called, "proceeding from the
Father and the Son," was adopted at the Council of
Toledo, A.D. 589. The words," God of God," omitted in
the Nica::o-Constantinopolitan Creed, are introduced in
the version of that creed contained in the English Book
of Common Prayer. So also is the expression ftlioque,
" and the Son."

D. 325-730.J

Apollinaris and Nestorius.

I

17

It was an appropriate appendix to the controversy
respecting the relation of the Son to the Father, that
attention should be turned to the relation of the Son to
humanity: the Son of God being at that period the
grand subject of theological reflection.
APOLLINARIS, a friend of Athanasius, about A.D. 362,
being ejected from the Church of Laodicea by its Arian
Bishop, pushed his view of the Divinity of Christ to such
an extreme, that he believed it superseded in Hirn the
existence of a human soul, at least, of a reasonable soul.
He held that, by the Word being made flesh, we are to
understand, that He simply took upon Himself a human
body; moreover, Apollinaris maintained that the body
of Christ came from heaven, and was free from the
imperfections of our fleshly nature. At the Council of
Constantinople, A.D. 38 I, already noticed, amongst the
heresies anathematized in the first canon is "that of the
Apollinarians;" and this really is all we know of the
proceedings of the Council against this particular opinion.
The orthodox Emperor Theodosius enacted rigorous
laws for the punishment of the Apollinarians ; but it is
uncertain whether or not they were enforced.
NESTORIUS, elected Bishop of Constantinople in A.D.
428, zealously opposed the doctrine which merged the
human in the Divine nature of our Saviour, and vindicated
these words, used by his friend Anastasius, in a sermon
preached in the metropolitan church, "Let no one call
Mary Mother of God, for she was a human being; and
it is impossible that God should be born of a human
creature." 1 To speak of the Virgin as Mother of God
(0rnr6Kos), had become, to SOme extent, a practice in
the Church; but this Nestorius disapproved, though he
1

Socrates,

VII.

32.

The word used is av0pw1roi;.

JI8

Theological Results.

[PART II·

steadfastly adhered to the Nicene Creed. On account
of his anxiety to distinguish between ·the Divine and
human elements in Christ, he wa·s accused of dividing
the one Redeemer into two persons ; and on this account
he was condemned, first at the Provincial Councils of
Alexandria and Rome, in A.D. 430, and next at the
General Council of Ephesus in A.D. 43 I ; where, however,
only about two hundred bishops were present. Articles
selected out of the writings of Nestorius were pronounced "horrible and blasphemous " ; and the Fathers
exclaimed," Anathema to the heretic Nestorius, and to
all who refuse to anathematize him!"
Next appeared EUTYCHES, A.D. 448, who, whilst expressing his assent to the exposition of doctrine given at
Nica!a and Ephesus, added, he did not consider it taught
that Jesus Christ was made of two natures hypostatically
united, nor did he believe that the Word had received
flesh from heaven. He confessed that He who was born
of the Virgin Mary was perfect God and perfect Man,
but had not flesh consubstantial with ours. At the
Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, Eutyches was accused
of .heresy. In explanation he said, " I confess that our
Lord was of two natures before the union; but after the
union I confess one nature." The Fathers in Council
on hearing this, rose on their feet, and exclaimed,
"Anathema to him ! " He was deposed from the priesthood, and all who held communion with him were
exposed to excommunication.
The orthodox doctrine on the subject of our Lord's
person is expressed in the definition of the Council ; but
it is too long to be quoted here. The substance is, that
Jesus Christ is true God and true man, as to His
Deity consubstantial with the Father, as to His man-

A.D. 32 5-730.J Co11troversies as to Christ's Person.

119

hood consubstantial with us; and it distinctly calls the
Virgin, Mother of God.
The disgraceful proceedings connected with this
controversy ; the scenes of vi0lence at the Council of
Ephesus, giving it the merited name of the Council of
Robbers ; together with the bewildering metaphysical
distinctions in which the discussion abounded, have
produced a disgust with the whole affair which has prejudiced many, so as to blind them to what is really interesting and important in the controversy. It was a conflict
of the inquisitive , understanding on the one side with
uninquiring faith on the other. The understanding, busy
with logical definitions, and faith, representing mysteries
so as to make them appear not only above reason but
opposed to it-two tendencies lying deep in the mind
of man-account for many theological phenomena. In
this controversy, as in many since, those who gloried
in the mystery, and rebuked the men so fond of defining
the undefinable, did themselves express the mystery
under certain terms, which they would not allow to be
altered, and bound it, so expressed, on the consciences
of others; thus laying themselves open to the charge
which they brought against their opponents. But there
were not wanting wisdom and moderation in the views of
some engaged in the strife; for Leo of Rome showed that
"the only important thing was, that the union of the two
natures should be maintained without being confounded."
It was, however, the practical Roman, not the metaphysical Greek, who said this. The whole was a development
of that activity of thought which at the time centred in
the person of Christ; nor is it difficult to connect the
whole with earlier modes of thinking-the one party, that
which dwelt most on the mystery, appealing to the

Tlteological Results.

120

[PART II.

language of the Church, before any theological controversy had arisen ; the other party-that which chose to
explain the nature of the union-carrying out the speculations of Tertullian and Origen, who were the first to
maintain the existence in Christ of a human .mind as
well as a human body.
The doctrine of Eutyches obtained a strong hold on
the Eastern Church, and continued to exist under the
name of Monophysitism : indeed, it survives to this day
in an Oriental sect, denominated J acobites, from a leader
named James. It took two forms-one, that the Divinity
was the sole nature of Christ, the body being a mere
phantasm; the other, that as body and soul constitute
one man, so Divinity and humanity became one compound nature in Christ.
Âˇ
Neale, in his work on The Eastern Church, gives a
table of the divisions and subdivisions of Monophysitism,
amounting to seven branches of the first division, and
six of the second : two of the seven springing into three
minor ramifications, and one of the second into no less
than nine. 1
Out of the controversy referring to the person of
Christ arose another referring to the will of Christ.
How did His complex constitution, it was asked, affect
His power of volition? If He had a Divine nature and a
human nature, should it be said that He had two wills, or
one? Hence, in the seventh century, we meet with a sect
denominated Monothelites ; the name, of course, indicating that they believed our Lord possessed but a single
will; but, according to the most careful accounts, it would
appear that this was not the case, but rather, that they
thought, whilst Christ, by virtue of His two natures,
1

Ch. ofAlexandria,

II.

9Âˇ

A,D. 325-73o.]

Monothelitism.

121

had two wills, one of them was the supreme controlling will. The Monothelites repudiated all connection
with the Monophysites, believing that Christ had a
human soul, with a power of choosing, which was not
inoperative; yet that there was, in a certain sense, one
will and one operation of will in Christ. 1 Some, it is
said, intended no more than that there was a perfect
harmony and union of will in Him. Others, that the two
powers were amalgamated, that the human will was the
instrument of the Divine. There was a further distinction, one party holding that the resignation of the human
will to the Divine was voluntary; another holding that
such resignation was necessary, as consequent upon the
union of the two natures.
It is distressing to find a controversy like this, turning upon a question mysterious and insoluble, - and
often degenerating into the use of unintelligible words,mixed up with political and ecclesiastical partisanship,
yet such is the case; and we are glad to quit this thorny
and unprofitable path of history, by citing the decision
published at the Sixth General Council, held at Constantinople, A.D. 680 : " There are two natural wills and two
natural operations, without division, change, or conversion, antagonism, or confusion. The human will could
not come into collision with the Divine, but was in all
things subject to it." 2
1
Mosheim' s History, translated by Murdoch, with Supplementary
Notes by Dr. Reid, p. 257.
2
Hase, in bis Church Hz'story, gives a condensed view of the
external aspects of the controversy, p. r3r. Hardwicke's Church
History ef the Middle Ages, p. 69, supplies a good idea of both
the circumstances and substance of the controversy. For a philosophical view of the conflict, see N eander, Hist., vol. v. p. 227.

Tlieological Results.

122

[PART II.

It may, however, before we pass on, be well to
observe, that the Gospels in their presentation of the life
of Christ give the impression of one undivided personality. His acts are combined in a perfect whole. His
life is not a conflict between contending powers, elements,
or principles; but it is a beautiful harmony, in which
the human and Divine, though distinguishable, are never
in opposition. There are, however, utterances by our
blessed Lord which present Him under two aspects; 1
and the question accordingly is suggested, Was the centre
of His personality human or Divine? Did He think and
act from a human stand-point or a Divine one ? Did
the Divine completely control the human? or did the
human originate volitions and acts under the guiding
light and power of the Divine ? or was sometimes the
one and sometimes the other the case ? As these
inquiries arise, who can dare to pursue them? What firm
footing is there in such a mysterious sphere of speculation? There are abysses on both sides. For my part,
I do not venture to proceed, but would rather rest
content with a simple faith in our Lord's Divinity and
humanity, in His one undivided personality, and in the
perfect harmony of His whole nature and character. We
find the subject of our own will an inexplicable puzzle;
how much more the will of Christ !
The doctrines discussed at the Nicene period, and in
the two succeeding centuries, continued throughout, and
later still, to be formulated in rules of faith, adopted by
Councils and Synods; but much more important than any
other formulary of doctrine, next to the Nicene symbol,
in its earlier and later forms, was the famous document
which goes by the name of the Atlzanasian Creed. It
1

John xvii. 24-26 ; Matt. xxvi. 38-40.

A.D. 325-730.]

Athanasian Creed.

123

has been satisfactorily proved, over and over again, that
the great Alexandrian Father had nothing to do with its
production, except through his advocacy of doctrines
which are expressed in its well-known articles. Its
origin and history we have no room, and indeed no
business, to discuss in the present work, and can only
state the conviction, abundantly established by learned
research, that it cannot be of earlier date than the eighth
or ninth century. It should be studied in connection
with the creeds already cited, and it is therefore inserted
here, according to the received text. 1
THE ATHANASIAN CREED.
Whosoever he is that would be saved : first of all it is needful
that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except a man shall preserve in its integrity and
purity : without doubt he shall perish for ever.

I.
And the Catholic Faith is this : That we worship one God in the
Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity;
â&#x20AC;˘ Neither confusing the Persons: nor separating the Substance.
For the Person of the Father is one, the Person of the Son
another: and the Person of the Holy Spirit another;
But the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit is one : equal glory, co-eternal majesty.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son: such is the Holy
Spirit;
The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate: the Holy Spirit uncreate;
1

I take it from " The Athanasian Creed," a letter written by
Dr. Swainson, and publi,hed in 1870, by Rivingtons. To the great
work of that eminent scholar, entitled, The Nicene and Apostles'
Creeds, 1875, I refer the student, as the best help to the full
understanding of all questions relative to t1::ie three creeds.

124

Theological Results.

[PART II.

The Father unlimited, the Son unlimited : the. Holy Spirit
unlimited;
The Father eternal, the Son eternal : the Holy Spirit eternal;
And still not three eternals : but one eternal ;
As also not three uncreated nor three unlimited: but one uncreated, and one unlimited.
So likewise the Father Almighty, the Son Almighty : the Holy
Spirit Almighty ;
And still not three Almighties : but one Almighty.
So the Father God, the Son God : the Holy Spirit God;
And still not three Gods : but there is one God.
So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord : the Holy Spirit Lord ;
And still not three Lords : but one Lord.
Because as we are compelled by Christian truth : to confess
severally each one person as God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic,Religion: to speak of three
Gods or Lords.
The Father is made of none : not created, nor begotten ;
The Son is of the Father alone : not made nor created but
begotten;
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son : not made nor
created nor begotten but pro~eeding.
There is then one Father, not three Fathers ; one Son, not
three Sons : one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after : there is
nothing greater or less ;
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together : and coequal.
So that in all things, as has already above been said: the Unity
in Trinity and the Trini yin Unity ought to be worshipped.
He therefore that would be saved : let him thus think of the
Trinity.

II.
But it is necessary to eternal Salvation : that he also believe
faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
It is then the right faith that we believe and confess : that our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
He is God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before all

A.D.

325-730.]

A thanasian Creed.

125

times: and He is Man of the Substance of His.mother, born in
time;
Perfect' God, perfect Man : of a reasonable soul and human
flesh subsisting;
Equal to the Father, as touching the Godhead : inferior to the
Father, as touching the manhood;
Who, though He be God and Man: yet is not two, but is one
Christ;
Ar.d one, not by changing of the Godhead into flesh : but by
taking up of the Manhood into God ;
One altogether; not by confusion of the Substance : but by the
oneness of the Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man : so the God
and Man is one Christ.
Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell, on the third
day arose again from the dead;
Ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father
Almighty : from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the
dead.
At whose coming all men have to rise with their bodies : and
shall render an account of their own proper deeds ;
And they who have done good deeds shall go into eternal life:
but they who have done evil deeds, into eternal fire.
This is the Catholic Faith : which except a man shall have
faithfully and steadfastly believed, he shall not be able to be saved.

Upon comparing this with the previous creeds, several
points present themselves worthy of notice in reference
to the history of theological opinion.
There is in it a development of doctrinal principles
asserted at Nic::ea and Constantinople. The articles run
on the same lines as were laid down by the Church
Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries; but they are
drawn out to a greater length, and contain propositions
on subjects not introduced into the preceding formularies.
There is not only doctrinal expansion, but doctrinal
addition. Nor can we help detecting in it a blending of

126

Theological Results.

[PART II.

Latin with Greek elements of theological thought. Of its
Latin origin there can be no doubt; the Greek copies are
of late date, and are translated from Western documents.
Augustine and others had used expressions and made
statements, combined together in this notable composition. The orthodox doctrine of the West is here collected and summarized ; but there is in it a subtlety of
conception, and a precision of style, which we cannot
help attributing to Greek intellects and the study of
Greek style. Latin theologians, unassisted by the controversies and writings of the Eastern Church, could
hardly have produced a document so wonderfully remarkable for its depth and force, for its analytical skill,
its comprehensive range, and its delicate accuracy of
language. Whatever may be thought of its dogmatic
conclusions, it must be regarded by every candid literary
critic as a masterpiece of theological ability. It grasps
the questions which had been at issue in Constantinople
and Alexandria, and gives unmistakeable expression to
orthodox convictions of the Divinity of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ. At the same time it clearly recognizes a distinction between the words substance and person,
which had been interchangeably used by Athanasius
and other Greek Fathers. Indeed, the distinction is
so palpable, that whilst there can be no doubt that the
authors of the earlier and the later compositions were
substantially of one mind in point of doctrine, the phraseology of the one is opposed to that often used by the
framers of the other. Whereas the Nicene Fathers
spoke of one hypostasis, the Quicunque vult, as it is
often called, from its opening words, speaks of three (at
TpE'is v1roCTTaCTEts); it should be noted, however, that, as
the earlier declares the Son is of one substance with the

A.D. 325-730.]

A thanasian Creed.

127

Father, so the latter declares He is God, of the substance
of the Father. The Nicene says, EK Tfjs ol"rfos Tov 1raTp6s;
the Quicunque, in its Greek form, has precisely the same
words. Another thing which strikes us, on comparing
the two, is, that in the latter we have not only the doctrine
of the Son's Divine nature, but the use of the word
Trinity (Tpiaoi), as well as the expression a, Tp/is
v1ro<TTa<TEl'>, the three Persons.
Nothing exactly corresponding with this occurs, in point of phraseology, in
the symbol of Nica:a, though that sets forth in substance
what we understand by the doctrine of the Trinity. The
word had come into full theological use at the time
when the Quicunque originated. Further, it is worthy of
notice, that it expands the orthodox doctrine reached
through the Monophysite controversy. It takes up, in
its second grand division, that which we do not find
within the corners of the Nicene Creed, namely, the
question as to the nature -of the union between our
Lord's Divine and human natures. He is declared to be
God and Man, yet not two-one altogether, not by confusion of the Substance, but by oneness of the Person.
The Eastern Monophysite conflict, which arose after the
great Nicene controversy, has thus left on the Western
Confession the visible marks of its action, and it indicates
an advanced stage in the progress of European theological reflectiveness. But, what is very curious, no trace
can be found in it of the influence of the Monothelite
branch of the Eastern polemical discussion. This fact
cannot weigh as an argument for its early date, against
the demonstrative evidence, gathered from so many
sources, in support of its later origin ; but it may be
taken as a proof that the West at the time felt no deep
interest in that subtle Eastern disputation. It does not

128

Theological Results.

[PART II.

appear to have ever occupied much of the attention of
Latin theologians. John IV. (A.D. 641), and Martin v.
(649), did, indeed, condemn the Monothelite heresy, as
it was termed; and the Synods, called by them for the
purpose, used the strongest anathematizing language
against Monothelite heretics ; but it was rather a furious
fulmination aimed at distant antagonists, than any profound investigation into an impalpable question, which
could not have the same fascination for a Latin priest as
it had for a Greek monk. On comparing the two Confessions of Faith, we are further struck with the intensely
metaphysical and controversial character of the last. It
is interesting and grateful to a devout mind to recognize,
in the Apostles' Creed, the simple religious affirmation of
belief in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.
It expresses childlike trust in the Divine Lord, Saviour,
and Sanctifier. It is the utterance of filial love and devotion. The Nicene Creed, though decidedly definitional,
and making an effort to fix at once the union and the
distinction between the Father and the Son, is also personal. The Constantinopolitan form does not lose that
characteristic. In both, the Church joins to declare its
faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. A
devotional element remains. The faithful, as on their
knees before the throne of Heaven, confess their trust.
But it is otherwise with the Quicunque vult. Further than
the Nicene, it plunges into scientific controversy. It deals
with logical propositions in a critical spirit, and having
announcerl conclusions elaborately worked out, in a hard,
dry tone of intellectual care and precision, it reserves all
feeling for an outburst of dogmatic authority and merciless condemnation of those who will not submit. "Whosoever he is that would be saved, first of all it is needful

A,D,

325-73o.]

T rinitarian Controversy.

129

that he hold the Catholic Faith, which Faith except a man
shall preserve in its integrity and purity, without doubt
he shall perish for ever." And then it winds up its own
dogmatic decision with the words': "This is the Catholic
Faith, which except a man have faithfully and stedfastly
believed, he shall not be able to be saved." Athanasius,
in his own writings, did not anathematize the Arians.
The Nicene Council did; but it only used the word
anathematize, whatever it might mean ; the damnatory
clause it contains is omitted in the new and revised
Constantinopolitan edition ; but the Quicunque uses the
most terrific phraseology, and consigns to everlasting
perdition all who should refuse to accept its elaborate
definitions. It has been called a psalm rather than a
symbol ; so regarded, the imprecatory element in it is
very strong, and it becomes a kind of theological warsong; the damnatory lines of which might have been
appropriately sung in chorus through the streets of
Alexandria, at moments when the fourth century conflict
there reached its highest pitch. Âˇ It reveals what must
have been an approved tone of theological thinking in
the early portion of the Middle Ages.
As to these controversies respecting the nature of
God and of Christ, we may be allowed to remark, that
the attention of the student should be especially called
. to three important words-substance, ov<da; person, {11r6ITT-a<ns; and Trinity.
The word substance, etymologically regarded, means
that which stands under, that which underlies phenomena ; and ovrrfo signifies being, or essence, the inward
nature, of which qualities are the manifestation. We
may appreh~nd the fact that the universe is something
more than phenomenal, that it has a real foundation ; but
K

130

Theological Results.

[PART IIÂˇ

this is quite a different thing from comprehending exactly what this foundation is. That we cannot discover,
and it follows a fortiori that we cannot discover what
constitutes the essence or ground of the Divine existence.
Discussion, then, as to the Divine substance, and the
consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, if we
attempt to go further than the revealed facts of the case,
are discussions about things totally mysterious.
The history of the Latin word persona, and the Greek
word 1rp6<n,nrov, which comes nearest to it, is curious.
A mask, a character on the stage, visage, countenance, are
explanations of these terms given in dictionaries. The
first two are not dignified significations. Hypostasis, as
we have seen, was at one time used as equivalent to
substance, and afterwards employed to denote person,
as distinguished from substance. If the etymology of
persona and 1rp6<J'w1rov associates derogatory thoughts
with the sacred subject before us, the history of the term
hypostasis introduces great confusion. Indeed, the application of the word in the Greek Athanasian Creed
literally contradicts what some of the Nicene Greeks
said, when expressing their orthodox belief. Moreover,
the use of the word person, in relation to the Divine Being,
unless it be most carefully considered and confined, is
liable to the charge of obscurity, inasmuch as God is
spoken of as a Person ; and the Father, the Son, and the
Spirit included within the infinitely glorious Godhead,
are also denominated Persons. The fact is, the terms
person and personality are theologically employed in
different senses from that in which they are commonly
Âˇ employed. The word person, in reference to a human
individual, has not the same meaning as when referred
to the Divine Being ; nor does the word personality carry

A.D.

325-73o.]

Trinitarian Controversy.

131

the same signification, when applied to the united
Divine nature, as when applied to the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit. The word person can be used
only in a qualified sense when employed to denote the
revealed distinction in the Godhead. What the exact
nature of the distinction is we do not know, we cannot
know, though the fact of the distinction, as plainly presented in Scripture, we fully recognize. Apprehend it
we can; comprehend it we cannot. Mysteriousness
encompasses this part of the subject no less than that of
the Divine substance or essence, just "noticed.
The word Trinity expresses the synthesis of Christian
faith respecting the threefold distinction in the Godhead.
It recognizes, so to speak, a synthesis of facts. Distinctions in the Godhead actually exist, and are mutually
correlated. So far as they are apprehensible, they come
under a common form of thought and a common formulary of expression. The fact of the existence of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we can apprehend
and believe, though the nature of their essence, and their
exact correlations, we cannot describe or understand.
The theological terms which have passed under our
consideration are subjected to severe criticism. Some
persons object to them, because they do not believe in
truths which the terms are designed to indicate; others,
who devoutly embrace those truths, may raise a question
as to whether they are best for the purpose contemplated ;
to which it may be replied, they have been sanctioned
by such long usage that it is now impossible to supersede
them ; that a thorough reconstruction of theological
terminology is an Utopian idea; and that the wise course
seems to be to use such words with a careful recognition
of the extent to which they are applicable.
K 2

Theological Results.

[PART II.

There is another point requiring notice before we
leave the subject now under review. The relation of the
Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son became an interesting question to the great Nicene divines. "The Latin
Fathers," says Bishop Pearson, "taught expressly the
procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son ....
And the Greek Fathers, though they stuck more closely
to the phrase and language of the Scripture, saying, that
the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and not saying
that He proceedeth from the Son; yet they acknowledged,
under another Scfiptural expression, the same thing
which the Latins understand by procession, viz. that the
Spirit is of or from the Son, as He is of and from the
Father ; therefore, usually when they said He proceedeth
from the Father, they also added,' He received of the
Son.' The interpretation of which words, according to
the Latins, inferred a procession, and that which the
Greeks did understand thereby was the same which the
Latins meant by the procession from the Son, that is, the
receiving of His essence from Him. That as the Son is
God of God by being of the Father, so the Holy Ghost
is God of God by being of the Father and the Son, as
receiving that infinite and eternal essence from them
both.
This being, then, 'the general doctrine of the
Eastern and the Western Churches, differing only in the
manner of expression, and that without any opposition,
Theodoret gave the first occasion of a difference, making
use of the Greek's expression against the doctrine both
of Greeks and Latins; denying that the Holy Ghost
receiveth His essence from the Son, because the Spirit,
saith he, proceedeth from the Father, and is the Spirit
which is of God. But St. Cyril, against whom he wrote,
taking small notice of this objection, and the writings of

A,D. 32 5-730.]

Procession of the Spirit.

133

Theodoret, in which this was contained, being condemned,
there was no sensible difference in the Church for many
years concerning this particular." 1 The second General
Council, in the words which it added to the Nicene Creed,
said only, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the
Father; but in the West, the procession of the Spirit from
the Son came to be inserted in the Church creeds, as we
have seen in that of Toledo, in A.D. 589. From Spain the
definition made its way into France; but a controversy
sprung up before the end of the eighth century. At
Friuli, in 796, Paulinus maintained that it was expedient
to admit the Toledo addition, because heretics were
whispering the denial of the Spirit's procession from the
Son. At the Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle, in A.D. 809,
complaint was made of a monk who had attacked some
pilgrims who believed in the double procession; and
the addition to the creed received a distinct approval.
Charlemagne sent to Leo III. to ask confirmation of
this step. He expressed approval of the doctrine, but
objected to any alteration of the creed; and he is reported to have set up two silver shields in St. Peter's,
containing the Constantinopolitan Creed, in Greek and
Latin, without the addition. But Nicholas I. (A.D. 858)
and following popes admitted thefilioque clause. Photius,
the Greek Patriarch, complained of this; and the eighth
General Council (Constantinople, A.D. 869), so-called by
the Latins, condemned the clause, and insisted on its
being excluded. "And so," says Pearson," the schism
between the Latin and the Greek Churches began, and
was continued, and never to be ended, until those words
are taken out of the creed." 2
1

appears in the fourth and fifth centuries
respecting human sin and Divine grace, the most
important of the period, next to the Athanasian controversy just reviewed.
If the latter ought to be regarded in connection with
the speculative genius of the Greek, no doubt the former,
relative to the Divine and the human will, should be
connected with the practical bent of the Latins. The
question, what is the condition of humanity, and what is
the exact relation to it of the redeeming love of God, is
one perfectly natural to people of Roman habits ; but
the manner in which the question came to be answered
was influenced by causes deeper than any found in the
character of races, or in the idiosyncrasies of souls. Such
questions presented themselves to the mind of one of
the most extraordinary men that ever lived, and received
their answer before any controversy arose on the subject,
save that which went on in his own agitated soul. The
theological system of Augustine was in substance fully
formed, and the conclusions which have ever since been
identified with his name were reached and recorded
before Pelagius came out as a preacher of heresy.
Polemical discussion tended to set Augustinianism Âˇ in
sharper relief; such is ever the effect of counter-argument.
But too often what in the process is gain to science is
loss to religion.

A

DISPUTE

Pelagianism.

A.D. 325-730.]

1 35

PELAGIUS, a British monk, born in the middle of the
fourth century, was distinguished by his intellectual
ability and by his ascetic virtues. He was a pure-minded
and upright man, knowing "neither the depths of sin
nor the heights of g-race." He had" a contracted mind,"
an earnest purpose, but "no enthusiasm for lofty ideals."
He studied Greek theology, and was much imbued with
its spirit. In his mental idiosyncrasy, his moral and
religious habits, his education, and his rigorous self-rule
as a monk, we detect guiding impulses to his opinions of
Christianity, the main factors of his famous theology.
Here, as in a thousand instances, we see how personal
influences combined in the inspiration of theological
convictions. We notice how the man had been trained,
and how he had trained himself, to believe as he did. The
bent of his thoughts comes out in a letter he wrote: "As
often as I speak concerning moral improvement, and the
leading of a holy life, I am accustomed first to set forth
the power and quality of human nature, and to show
what it can accomplish." 1
A lack of spiritual feeling, of humble, hearty trust in
God as the fountain of good; a lack of that filial reliance upon a Father in heaven through His incarnate
Son, and the presence of a rigid formal righteousness
as a ground of hope-these were characteristic of this
theologian, and stamped their impress on his distinctive
theology. As to the human will, he believed that freedom is the highest good. A will capable of doing what
is right, or of doing what is wrong, is essential to our
service and accountability to God. An ability to disobey
is the necessary counterpart of an ability to obey. Man
is a self-determining moral agent, with the power of
1

Epistle to Demetn"us, c.

2.

136

Theological Results.

[PART II,

good and evil, of life and death, within his hands. There
is in us the possibility of either; one and the same thing
may be a root of all kinds of virtue, or a root of all
kinds of wickedness. Pelagius leaves the freedom of
humanity in a condition of indifferent equipoise towards
the opposite poles of the moral universe. According to
him, "the human will is, as it were, the eternal Hercules
at the cross road, who takes first a step to the right, then
a step to the left, and ever returns to his former position."
Pelagius, indeed, acknowledged the power of habit ; but
beyond that he seemed to know of nothing which touched
the freedom of the will. He maintained that it received
no bias from anything external to itself.
As to ability, he considered man to be now the same
as Adam was before the fall. Adam was created in a
state of thorough freedom, and man is born in the same
state. There is the same power to do right now as at
the beginning. Pelagius speaks of three elements in
human goodness-power, volition, act; the first pertaining to our nature ; the second to our will ; the third to
our conduct. Divine grace is reduced by him to the
bountifulness of God in nature, to the gift of a supernatural revelation in Scripture, and to the bestowment
on individuals of pardon for past sins. And here it is
worthy of notice that he speaks of this as a justification
-a declaring of any one righteous. Also he allows a
gracious strengthening of the human will through the
power of instruction and example; and he seems to go
beyond this by saying : " In those not Christians, good
exists in a condition of nakedness and helplessness ; but
in Christians it acquires vigour through the assistance of
Christ." He also distinguishes between different stages
of human improvement in a way which involves an idea

A.D. 325-730.]

A ugusti11ianism.

137

of special love and mercy under the evangelical dispensation. There was righteousness, he says, under
nature ; and righteousness under law ; now there is
righteousness under the Gospel, Âˇwhich he styles justitz'a
gratim. Grace thus modified, Pelagius pronounced an
external help (ac{jutorium) ; and he went so far as to
admit, under the pressure of controversy, that the grace
of God in Christ is necessary every moment for every act.
It is plain that in such a system of opinions no place
could be found for any special work of the Holy Spirit
on the souls of individuals, for renewal and sanctification ;
nor for a predestinating purpose on the part of God, such
as is meant by the doctrine of election. 1
The conversion and spiritual life of AUGUSTINE are,
as indicated already, to be carefully considered in connection with the study of his opinions. They grew out
of his experience under the light of Scripture and the
teaching of the Church. .We know a great deal more
about Augustine's doctrine than about that of Pelagius.
There are in existence works by the former expressly
devoted to the refutation of Pelagianism, and more to
the development of what are commonly styled doctrines
of grace. He argues, reasons, declaims, on this theme
with inexhaustible energy and fervour. He cites Scripture, employs logic, refers to facts, pours out his own
1
It should be stated that we have no complete work by Pelagius.
We only know him through extracts and representations made by
his opponents. We obtain more information respecting his conclusions than his arguments. Augustine's works must be examined to
ascertain the opinions of Pelagius. Wiggers' work on Augustinianism and Pelagianism is valuable; but it must be remembered that
the English translation differs considerably from the German original,
criticism and addition being introduced by the translator. See also
Neander, Hist., vol. IV. pp. 313-40; Schaff, vol. III. p. 285 et seq.

138

Theological Results.

[PART ~I.

experience-all in defence, illustration, and enforcement
of the grace of God as free, sovereign, and irresistible.
A succinct account of Augustine's faith, which he
delivers as the faith of the Catholic Church, on the points
involved within the Pelagian controversy, may be found
in his 217th Epistle. 1
"We know, that before men were born into this world, they had
no other wherein they did either good or evil. ... But, descending
from Adam according to the flesh, they partake, by their birth, of
the poison of that ancient death which he became subject to by his
sin ; and that they are not delivered from eternal death, except they
are regenerated in Jesus Christ through His grace.
"We know, that the grace of God is not given, upon the account
of any merit, either to infants, or to men that are come to the age
of reason.
"We know, that grace is an assistance afforded for every action,
to those that have attained to the age of reason.
"We know, that it is not given to all men ; and that those to whom
it is given, receive it, without having deserved it by their own works,
or by their will; which appears particularly in infants.
"We know, that it is out of God's mere mercy that it is given to
those to whom it is given.
"We know, that it is by a just judgment of God that it is not
given to those to whom it is not given.
"We know, that we shall all appear before the judgment-seat of
Jesus Christ, that every one may receive either reward or puni~hment, according to what he shall have done in the body, and not
according to what he should have done had he lived longer.
"We know, that infants shall not receive recompense or punishment, but according to what they shall have done in the body; that
is, whilst they were in the body; that is, according as some have
been regenerate, and others not.
"We know, that eternal happiness is ensured to all those that die
in Jesus Christ; and that nothing is imputed to them of what they
might have done, had they been alive.
1 Condensed by Dupin, Hist., V. 163; it is worth while to introduce it here before we proceed further.

A.D. 325-730.]

A ugustinianism.

139

"We know, that as many as believe in God, believe willingly,
and by an action of their free will.
"We know, that we ought to pray unto God for those that believe
not, that they would believe.
"We know, that whensoever any of these embraces the faith, we
are to give God thanks sincerely, and from the bottom of our hearts,
as being an effect of His mercy, and that when we do it, as we are
wont to do, we perform a duty incumbent upon us."

To look for a moment at Augustine's notions of
freedom : he believed in spontaneity and self-activity,
and that both sin and holiness are quite voluntary; but
he thought that Adam, by freely choosing evil, fell under
the bondage of sin-in which state the human will remains. Divine grace sets man free by bringing him into
the serviGe of God. Deo servire vera libertas est. "Evil,''
he says, "is removed not by removing any nature or part
of a nature which had been introduced by evil, but by
healing and correcting that which had been vitiated and
depraved. The will, therefore, is then truly free when
it is not the slave of vices and sins. Such was it given
us by God ; and this being lost by its own fault, can
only be restored by Him who was able at first to give it.
And, therefore, the truth says, ' If the Son make you
free, ye shall be free indeed ; ' which is equivalent to
saying, If the Son shall save you, ye shall indeed be
saved. For He is our Liberator, inasmuch as He is our
Saviour." 1
The view entertained by Augustine relative to human
sin requires particular attention. Athanasius before
him regarded it as of a negative character, and represented it as consisting in human ignorance and indolence.2 Similar representations are found in Basil and
â&#x20AC;˘ ' l

De Civit., lib.

XIV. I I.

2

Cont. Gent., 4.

Theological Results.

[PART II.

Gregory of Nyssa. 1 Augustine so far agrees with Basil
and Gregory, that he makes sin to consist in _privation : 2
he carefully attributes its origin to man, and not to God,
and expressly distinguishes between God's predestination,
which relates to His operations; and God's foreknowledge, which extends to what He does not Himself effect
-including all good under the one head, and all evil
under the other. 3
In his controversy with Pelagius he unfolds his
theory of original sin, which forms one of the leading
characteristics of his theology, and lies at the basis of
his notions respecting Divine grace. He held that man
was created in the image of God; with a will inclined and
determined to holiness. This inclinationÂˇ was a supernatural gift, so as to render Adam's holiness not his
own meritorious product in any sense. All finite holiness is the result of a Divine operation upon created
nature. In this state, Adam was not subject to death
in any form. But with this blessed condition of existence there was coupled the possibility of originating sin
-of creating it, in fact, de nihilo. Adam was free in his
inclination to do good ; that, however, was not enough
for his state of probation. He must also be capable of
doing wrong, else his probation would have been unreal.
But though having the power to do wrong, he was bound
not to use the power. By using the power, he sinned.
In exercising that power, Adam created evil entirely in
and by himself. He originated it out of nothing. Man
1

was the author Âˇ of it, not God. Had Adam passed
through his probation safely, he would have become
incapable afterwards of all evil ; but not having done
so, he is now unable to originate holiness, and recover
himself from his state of apostasy. 1
Augustine affirmed, " We were all in that one man
who lapsed into sin, through the woman who was made
from him, previous to his transgression. The particular
form in which we were to live as individuals was not
assigned to us man by man ; but the seminal nature
existed from which we were to be propagated." 2 Again
and again he affirms that all were one in Adam ; in him
all have sinned, even infants ; they were in him by virtue
of his innate power which produced them ; the life of
the one man contained whatever was developed in his
offspring. 3
These statements, and a great many others made
by Augustine, must be studied in the light of that realistic
philosophy which he adopted, which was fully developed
by the sclioolmen, and which we shall endeavour to
explain in a future chapter.
Human nature was regarded as a reality distinguishable from human persons. Human nature, according to
this view, apostatized; and the consequence appears in
the apostasy of individuals. Nature comes before individuals, and makes an individual what he is. But
Augustine distinguished between human nature as
created by God, and human nature as it became subsequently through sin. Sin, he said, did not belong to
man's original nature. All sin is a violence done to
1
2
3

This account is gathered from various passages in Augustine.
De Civitate, lib. XIII. 14.
De Peccat. Meritis, lib. III. c. 7.

Theologz'cal Results.

[PART'II,

nature. Sin belongs to the fall ; and he preferred to
use the phrase,peccatum originale, to the phrase,peccatum
naturale. He did not consider that man had lost the
Divine image entirely. " There is good," he remarks,
" which deplores lost good ; if there were no good in
nature, there would be no sorrow over evil." 1
In connection with his theory of humanity, we must
take his theory of grace.
Grace, according to Augustine, is necessary for every
good act, or thought, or word. It is unmerited. It is
freely given, and precedes all Christian virtue. Grace
towards man, in its very nature, is something bestowed
on the unworthy. To him who at first wills not, grace
comes that he may will ; grace follows, that he may
not will in vain. Grace also is irresistible, including the
gift of final perseverance. Further, it is progressive;
and a distinction arises between prevenient, preparing,
co-operating, and perfecting grace.
Augustine's doctrine of predestination flows from his
doctrine of grace. Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome
taught a conditional predestination; Augustine an absolute one, including both the end and the means-in short,
the whole recovery of man, from the first inspiration of
spiritual life to the consummation of bliss in heaven. He
argued that salvation is of God, and that God knows and
determines beforehand all which He actually accomplishes. Consequently, the salvation He effects in time
must have been purposed from eternity. 2
Although there are distinct dogmatic declarations in
Augustine on the points we have noticed, yet thereÂˇ is
1 Shedd, Hist. Doctrines, vol. II. p. 83. He supplies references,
which, on examination, are seen to bear out Âˇhis remarks.
2 See De Gratid Christi.
De Gratid et libero arbitrio.

A,D.

325-730.]

A ugustinianism.

143

truth in the remark of Dr. Hampden, that we seek in
vain Âˇfor any positive expressions " by which an exact
theory of Divine and human agency, in their relations to
each other, may be enumerated."Âˇ His opinions cover so
wide a space, are presented in such a variety of forms,
are in some places so qualified and guarded, whilst in
others they appear bold and rash, and exhibit such
subtlety and many-sidedness of thought-to say nothing
of his Retractations of what he had once affirmed-that a
theory consistent in all respects cannot be gathered from
his writings. Dr. Hampden goes on to say that what he
remarked "is evident in the fact that the orthodox, the
J ansenist, the Thomist, and the Jesuit all equally refer to
the authority of that Father." 1
The same writer also observes : "That the influence of
Augustine on the theology of the Middle Ages was very
great, and that he contributed much to the general belief
in predestination. Predestination, regarded as the sole
primary cause of all our actions, as they are moral and
Christian,-as they have any worth in them, or any happiness,-was asserted in that theology in the most positive
manner; though different doctors varied in further expositions of its nature. But reprobation, as it implies a
theory of the moral evil of the world, I think I may say
confidently, is no part of the system." 2
Perhaps, in a question so open to controversy as the
opinions of Augustine, it may be well to give a further
summary of them by a competent and impartial historian.
Canon Robertson remarks : "Augustine, in one of his
earlyworks,had laid down that predestination is grounded
on foreknowledge-an opinion which had been commonly
held in the Church. As his views on the subject of grace
1

Bampton Leet., p. 163.

2

Ibid., p. 180.

144

Tlzeological Results.

[PART II,

became developed, he had been led to teach a more
absolute predestination; but it was not until the Pelagian
controversy was far advanced that he set forth distinctly,
and in connection with the rest of his system, those doctrines as to predestination which have entered so largely
into the controversies of later times. The occasion for
his treating the subject was given by a report of serious
dissensions which took place about the year A.D. 426 at
Adrumetum, where some monks, on the ground (as they
supposed) of one of Augustine's epistles, disturbed their
brethren by denying the freedom of the will and a future
judgment according to works. On this Augustine wrote
a letter, in which he laid down the necessity of believing
both in the Divine grace and in the freedom of the will.
' If there be no grace of God,' he asks, 'how doth He
save the world? if there be no free will, how doth He
judge the world? '-and he devoted two treatises to the
examination of the points in question. In these books
he still maintained the freedom of man's will; but he held
that this essential freedom was not inconsistent with the
existence of an outward necessity controlling it in ~he
prosecution of its desires. Our will, he said, can do that
which God wills, and which He foresees that it will do ;
will, therefore, depends on the Divine foreknowledge.
God had from eternity determined to rescue some of
human kind from the misery brought on us by sin. The
number of these is fixed, so that it can neither be
increased nor diminished; even before they have a being
they are the children of God ; if they deviate from the
right way, they are brought back to it; they cannot
perish. As God, being almighty, might save all, and as
many are not saved, it follows that He does not will the
salvation of all - a tenet which Augustine laboriousfy

A.D. 325-730.]

Augustine.

145

tried to reconcile with St. Paul's declaration that He
Âˇ, will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth' (r Tim. ii. 4). The elect are
supplied with all gifts which are requisite for bringing
them to salvation, and grace works irresistibly in them.
The ground of their election is inscrutable-resting on
the secret counsel of God. He does not predestine any
to destruction; for His predestination regards such things
only as He Himself works, whereas sin is not His work ;
but He knows who are not chosen and will not be saved.
These perish either through unforgiven original sin, or
through actual transgression. That they have no portion
in Christ is no ground for impugning the Divine justice ;
for if God do not give grace to all, He is not bound to
give it to any; even among men, a creditor may forgive
debts to some, and not to others. ' By giving to some
that which they do not deserve, God has willed that His
grace shall be truly gratuitous, and therefore real ; by
not giving to all, He shows what all deserve. He is good
in benefiting the certain number, and just in punishing
the rest. He is both good in all cases, since it is good
when that which is due is paid ; and just in all, since it
is just when that which is not due is given, without
wrong to any one.' Those who are lost deserve their
condemnation, because they have rejected grace either
in their own persons or in that of the common father." 1
Many who concur with Augustine in his general views
of grace, will shrink from his predestination theory; but
others will recognize and admit in such views as his a
Divine election, which is the primal cause of faith and
obedience, rather than an effect arising out of faith and
obedience. At the same time, they may decline to adopt
1

Robertson, Hist. of the Christian Church, vol. II. p. 161.
L

.

Theological Results.

[PART II.

his mode of presenting the doctrine of Divine decrees,
and object to certain dogmas he blended with his system.
Independent a thinker as Augustine was, yet he was
open to extraneous influences, which considerably modified his opinion. That philosophy which produced the
realism of the Middle Ages is seen, as already noticed, in
his representation of humanity. He regarded it as being
folded up in Adam, without (if we may use his metaphysical phraseology) the forms of the essence being distributed.1 In his occasionally confounding what is purely
natural with what is really sinful may be detected the
working of asceticism ; and the great defect in his system
-his leaving the pardon of sin after baptism dim and indistinct-shows how decidedly the notion of sacramental
efficacy ruled his mind. We do not believe that he would
ever have maintained the opinion which he did, that infants
who die without baptism are unsaved, unless he had been
driven to do so by the tyranny of the same principle. If
there ever was a man who, to devout feeling and habits
!)f mystical contemplation, united the utmost logical
consistency and intrepid courage in avowing conclusions,
1
A writer in the British Quarterly Review (vol. VI. p. 250)
observes of Augustine : " He conceived of the relation of Adam to
his posterity as an actual incorporation of that posterity in his
person, in consequence of which his acts became theirs ; and the
results of his acts were regarded as belonging as much to ear.h of
them singly as to him. Thus in the City of God (xm. 3-14),
'When that pair received the Divine sentence of condemnation, the
whole human race were in the first man, which by the woman were
to pass into posterity. We were all in that one, as we were all that
one who fell into sin. Not as yet was the form created (here we see
the Aristotelian), and distributed to us singly in which we were
individually to live ; but the nature was now seminal from which we
were to be propagated.'" See also De Peccat. Meritis, etc., lib. 1.
c. x. ; Retract., lib. 1.

A.D. 325-730.]

Semipelagianism.

it was the Bishop of Hippo. With an unfaltering step
he could walk down into the darkest mysteries, even as
with an eye unblenched he could gaze up at the most
dazzling wonders. Calmly he stood in the midst of the
universe, and pointed to objects the most awful, believing
them to be in harmony with the righteousness of God, a
harmony which the endless resources of his logic were
employed to establish. Sometimes, we find, the saint
is stronger than the dialectician; and, appalled in his
ratiocinations by what he felt to be opposed to the
character of the perfect One, he retreated with horror
from the edge of an abyss ; and turning his face to the
effulgent throne of wisdom and goodness, he exclaimed
with filial love, "Let God be true, and every man a liar."
To other themes besides the Trinity may be applied
his beautiful story of the child with a shell striving to
empty the sea into a cavity dug with its tiny hand. 1
A modification of Pelagianism took place under the
influence of Augustine's opposition.
JOHN CASSIAN (A.D. 360-433), contemporary with
Chrysostom and Augustine, and described as a disciple
of the former, took a leading part in this direction. He
rejected many of the errors of the British monk, and
affirmed the universal sinfulness of man, the introduction
of evil through the fall, and the necessity of Divine grace
for human recovery. But he denied Augustine's doctrine
of election, and his views of special and irresistible grace.
1 It is curious to notice that a similar story is told of the
renowned scholar, Alanus de Insulis, of the eleventh century. As
he was going to preach on the Trinity, he saw a boy trying to
empty a river with a shell, who told him he should fulfil his task
before Alanus had explained the Trinity.
It shows how the
legends of one age were turned into facts by another.

L 2

Theological Results.

[PART II.

As to humanity and salvation, he struck out a middle
path, maintaining that man is morally sick, but not
morally dead ; that he needs a physician, but must
co-operate with his healer in order to his being restored
to spiritual health. Respecting Divine grace, though he
used strong expressions touching its necessity and power,
and believed that sometimes it anticipates the human
will and overcomes it-as in the case of Matthew the
publican and Saul the persecutor-he said, that in other
cases, and indeed usually, the human will is the determining influence, and he cites as examples the prodigal
son, Zacch~us, the penitent thief, and Cornelius the
centurion. 1
FAUSTUS, Bishop of Rhegium (died about A.D. 484),
took a line of thought resembling that of John Cassian.
On the subject of original sin he approached nearer to
Augustine ; but his ideas of Divine grace are represented
as less spiritual.2 The doctrine of predestination in an
absolute form he denounced as fatalistic and heathenish.
He distinguished between predestination and foreknowledge, and believed that our blessed Lord died for all
men.
It is time now to turn attention to certain opinions,
at the period under review, respecting the doctrine of the
Atonement.
Two questions were asked-Was the death of Christ
necessar;1 for human salvation ?-and, How did His death
operate in reference to the Divine government of the
universe?
As to the first question, Athanasius remarks: "Sup1 Cassian's opinions on these points are found in the thirteenth of
his Collationes. See art. on Cassian in Diet. of Chn'st. Biography.
â&#x20AC;˘ Wiggers' Augustiniant"sm, p. 287.

A.D. 325-730.J

Doctrine of the Atonement.

149

pose that God should merely require repentance in order
to salvation ? This would not in itself be improper, did
it not conflict with His veracity. God cannot be untruthful, even for our benefit. Repentance does not satisfy
the demands of truth and justice. If the question pertained solely to the cQrruption of sin, and not to the guilt
and ill desert of it, repentance might be sufficient. But
since God is both truthful and just, who can save, in this
emergency, but the Logos who is above all created beings ?
He who created men from nothing could suffer for all
and be their substitute." 1
"The Logos," he proceeds to say, "saw our condemnation and misery under a broken law. He saw how
unseemly, or out of place (lho1Tov), it would be for us to
escape the law except through fulfilling or satisfying it,
and, at the same time, how out of place it would be if the
Creator should leave His rational creatures to perish. As
He saw the ever-swelling tide of evil, and that all men
were in bondage to death, He had compassion on them,
and assumed a body, not by a physical necessity of nature,
for His essence is spiritual." The necessity was moral.
Athanasius everywhere treats the first and second creation a:s closely connected, and considers that for the
sake of harmony it was requisite that He, and He alone,
through whom the Father created the world, should
redeem the world. It is, however, apparent that all
along this great theologian was thinking more of the
Saviour's person and nature than of His specific work.
He wrote no treatise on the atonement itself, but referred
to the redemption effected by Christ in works on the
Incarnation. He thought more of the Logos than the
Lamb, more of the Son of God than of the High Priest
1 In Incant., c. vu.

Theological Results.

150

[PART II.

of our profession, more of the Incarnation than the
Crucifixion, more of a reasonable necessity for an atonement arising from the constitution of things than of any
legal necessity springing from the guilt of mankind.
Augustine took up the same subject, but not with the
force and precision of the Greek Father. He remarks,
that they are foolish who say the wisdom of God could
not liberate man otherwise than by the Divine assumption of humanity, and the suffering of a Redeemer at the
hands of sinners. 1 But then he also observes, that, if
the question be asked, whether there was no other way
whereby God could deliver man save the incarnation
and suffering of our Lord, it is not enough to say, this
is a good way ; it should also be shown, not indeed that
no other was open, but that no other was suitable.
Augustine held that the death of Christ, in one sense, was
not necessary ; that in another it was. His idea seems
to have been, that it was not naturally necessary that God
should do as He did, but it was morally necessary that He
should do what was best. Hilary insists on the necessity
of Christ's death much in the same way as Augustine.
According to him, the necessity is not to be sought in the
nature of the Redeemer, but in the condition and wants
of the redeemed. As Christ gave Himself up of His own
free will, the nature of the necessity must be regarded
as ethical. This statement by the Gallic divine occurs
in his work on the Trinity, showing, what appears both
in Athanasius and Augustine, that the theology of the
cross at that time grew out of the theology of the
incarnation. 2
As to the other question, How did the death of Christ
1

2

De Agone Christiano, c. 11.
De Tri'nitate, XIII. 10, I 1, 57,

61 â&#x20AC;˘.

A.D.

325-730.J

Doctrine of the Atonement.

151

operate in connection with the Divine government ?-it is
sufficiently plain, that the Fathers at this, as at an earlier
period, looked at the effect of the atonement chiefly on
the side of its moral influence, in restoring and renewing
man : still the other side received attention.
And here we come again upon a line of thought struck
out at an earlier period by Origen more boldly than by
Irenceus. It is remarkable that in the age now under
review, the doctrine of Devils and Demons occupied much
attention ; 1 and in connection with it, Gregory of Nyssa
argued, that men by sin had come under the dominion
of the evil one ; that Jesus offered Himself to him as a
ransom for the sake of delivering others ; that the crafty
spirit assented to this, because he valued Him as a captive
above all the rest, and then found himself deceived, inasmuch as he could not retain the Divine Victim within
his power. It was a kind of deception, for Jesus veiled
His Divine, nature, and Satan did not perceive it under
the appearance of human flesh; it was a sort of jus talionis
--the devil,having deceived man at the beginning,was now
outwitted himself. 2 This outwitting of the devil became
a favourite subject in after times, and in various grotesque
forms occurs in the legendary literature of the Middle
Ages. Ambrose, too, speaks of a fraud which befell the
adversary, through the crucifixion of Christ in weakness,
before His resurrection with power. 3 Rufi.nus took up and
carried out the same idea ; but Gregory, in his Morals on
the Book of Yob, exceeds all others in the space he devotes
to the character and work of the father of evil, and in the
gross conceptions he formed of the victory over him
achieved by the Lord. Commenting on Behemoth, in the
1
See Hagenbach, Hist. of Doct., r. p. 347. 2 Orat. Cat., c. 22-26.
3

Ambrose, Com. Luc., quoted in Hagenbach, vol.

I.

p. 352.

Theological Results.

[PART II,

40th chapter, he says, that Christ took Satan, as it were,
with a hook, that He assumed a body in order that Behemoth might aim thereby at the Saviour's destruction, and
that when the devil seized the bait,he lost us, whom he was
then justly holding, because we had surrendered ourselves
to him ; and could not secure the Divine Victim, who was
more than a match for diabolical power and cunning. The
old Serpent perished through that which he swallowed.
Behemoth knew indeed the incarnate Son of God, but not
the plan of our redemption. This absurd kind of rhetoric,
however, it should be remembered, was employed for
popular effect, and did not pretend to a place in scientific
theology. Gregory of N azianzum represents men as under
the dominion of the wicked one, and asks if a ransom be
paid to the possessor of a captive, to whom was a ransom
paid in this case, and for what reason? "To Satan? But
it would be a shame to think so, for in that case the robber
would be paid for his robbery. Is it, then, to the Father?
Here, it might be asked, how could that be, since God did
not hold us in bondage ? And how can we say, that the
Father delighted in the blood of His only Son, since He
would not accept the sacrifice of Isaac ? " 1 It is clear,
from this pa,ssage, that Gregory did not adopt the idea of
a ransom to the power of evil, and he adds : " Is it not
evident that the Father received the ransom, not because
He demanded or needed it, but on account of the Divine
Government or Economy (oL' olKovoÂľtav), and because man
is to be sanctified by the incarnation of God ; that having
subdued the tyrant, He might deliver and reconcile us to
Himself by the intercession of His Son ? "
Yet Gregory allows some artifice in the contest with
Satan, for he says, Christ assumed the form of man, in
' Orat.,

XLV.

A.D. 325-730.J

Doctrine of the Atonement.

153

consequence of which the adversary imagined he had
only to do with a mortal like ourselves, whereas the
power and glory of God dwelt within Christ. 1 And even
Athanasius, who, according to some, was the first to propound the notion of a debt paid to God, has something
to say of the devil in connection with it, for he remarks,
" Christ offered His human nature as a sacrifice for all,
and fulfilled the law by His own death, and thereby also
destroyed Satan's power." 2 Augustine avoids any gross
view of the atonement, but he falls in with other theologians of the period so far as to say, that God the Son, being
clothed in human nature, subjected even the devil to man,
not by violently seizing anything from him, but by righteously overcoming him. He also speaks of the latter
subjecting to himself the human race, and reigning in the
hearts of unbelievers ; and he declares, that through faith
in Christ, which is confirmed by His death and resurrection, and through His blood which was shed for the remission of sins, multitudes of believers are released from
the domination of the evil one, are united to Christ, and,
under His headship, grow up through His Spirit to be
faithful members of His mystical body. This he gives as
an exposition of our Lord's words," Now is the prince of
this world cast out." Christ predicted, what He foresaw,
that after His passion and glorification, many throughout
the world would believe in Him, within whose hearts the
devil had been, and from whose hearts, through their
faith, he would be cast out ; 3 thus, in connection with a
distinct acknowledgment of Christ's blood being shed for
the redemption of sins, this great Latin Father recognized
the deposition of the enemy of man from his usurped
l

Orat.,

XXXIX.
3 Tractatus

â&#x20AC;˘

Johannes,

LII.

De Incar., c.

VI.

154

Theological Results.

[PART II.

dominions ; in other words, Augustine connects spiritual
emancipation with Divine forgiveness.
Whilst there are these unsatisfactory attempts at a
theory of the atonement, in its relation to the Divine
government of the universe-some of them repulsive to
modern thought-passages are found in the patristic
writers, at this time, which indicate how fully convinced
they were of the vitally important religious truth, that
Christ Jesus died as a ransom for us. Athanasius
declares-that the death of the Logos was a ransom for
the sins of men, and a death of death : that, laden with
guilt, the world lay under the condemnation of the law ;
but the Logos took the judgment up into Himself, and
suffering in the flesh for all, He bestowed salvation on
all. That although not weak, He took upon Himself
our weakness; although not hungering, He hungered,
and sacrificed Himself for our salvation. 1
One side of human salvation was early unfolded in
the thoughtful consciousness of the Church. A doctrine
of regeneration, connected with the idea of baptismal
efficacy, is exhibited by the Nicene and earlier teachers;
but the other side is dimly and confusedly discerned.
Man's position towards that law which is the standard of
rectitude, and towards that Judge who is the fountain of
righteousness and the foundation of order, as well as the
change of that position in the believer's history, so that
his guilt is put away, and he is counted righteous, were
not more clearly apprehended by the Latins, with their
definite notions of law, than by the Greeks, whom we
might have expected to be slow in appreciating the
evangelical view of man's legal relations. There cannot
1 Passages to this effect are found in his Orations against the
Arians.

A.D. 325-370.J

Doctrine of Justification.

1

55

be found in the Nicene authors any statements, formal
and sustained, relating to the doctrine of justification,
either in harmony with the definitions at Trent, or in
strict accordance with Protestant formularies.
The question is not, Did they believe in a doctrine of
justification by faith; but, What did they mean by that
justification? Did they distinguish between the forensic
and moral views? Isolated passages may be culled,
some looking one way, some another; but no consistent,
thoroughly worked out view on the subject can be discovered in their writings.
Cyril, in his Catechetical Lecture on Faith, dwells on
its experience and its moral effect ; and Augustine
shows that faith is something far beyond mere historical
credence. "The devils," he says, "believe Christ to be;
but they do not believe in Christ. For he who believes
in Christ both hopes in Christ and loves Christ. Any
one who has faith without hope or love believes Christ
to be ; but he does not believe in Christ. Who, therefore,
believes in Christ, through believing, enjoys the coming
of Christ to him, and in a certain way is united to Him
as a member of His body." 1 There is a decided passage
in Cyril's Lectures, as it regards our acceptance with God,
where he says: " If thou believest that the Lord Jesus is
the Christ, and that God hath raised Him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved, and translated to paradise. Do not
disbelieve the possibility of this, for He who, in the holy
Golgotha, saved in one hour that believing thief, will
also save thee, if thou wilt believe." 2 Yet there is nothing
here which might not be said by a person who confounds
justification with sanctification. We read much in
Augustine of the grace of justification, and of justification
2
1 Sermo., 144.
Leet. v. 6.

Theological Results.

[PART II.

by faith. Some sentences in his works may bear an
interpretation according with views termed evangelical;
but the method of taking detached passages irrespective
of others pointing a different way, and without noticing
views on correlative points, can never lead to a correct
apprehension of theological opinions. Augustine speaks
of the grace by which we are justified as identical with
the infusion of the love of God. He contends, that God
justifies the ungodly person, not merely by pardoning
the evil he commits, but also by imparting love, that he
may turn from evil and do good through the Holy Ghost.
Speaking of the thief on the cross, as believing with his
heart unto justification, the LatinÂˇ Father immediately
explains it by adding that the man's faith wrought by
love, which arose in his heart, though there could be no
time for its manifestation in his conduct. The sameauthor tells us, that we are justified by the grace of God;
that is, made just, justi efficimur. Once more, he refers
to justification as imperfect in common Christians, and
perfect in the martyrs. 1 Further, on the same subjectturning from Augustine-:--we see that in the Canons of
the _Council of Carthage, in A.D. 418, against Pelagius, it
was decreed that whosoever should say that the grace by
which we are justified, through Jesus Christ our Lord,
avails only to the remission of sins already committed,
and is not also an aid against their commission, should
be anathematized, Again, in the same decrees, the grace
of justification is alluded to as the grace by which we
fulfil Divine commands. 2 While all this was consonant
with a doctrine of justification by faith, and wit~ tlie
1 De Gratid Christi~ 31,
Contra Julianum, lib. II. c. 165.
Retract., II. 33. Sermo., CLIX.
2 Canon IV., v., VI. Wiggers' Augustinianism, p. 172.

A.D.

325-730.J

Doctrine of Yustificatz'on.

1 57

doctrine of salvation by grace, such statements show
that there could have been no consistent maintenance of
the distinguishable connections of faith, first, with Divine
forgiveness, and secondly, with ma:n's renewal.
There are sentences in Basil and Ambrose which
come nearer to the Pauline doctrine, as apprehended by
Evangelical Protestants ; yet these sentences are found
amidst matter abounding in what such persons would
deem inconsistent with just views of the Gospel of Christ.
" For this/' says Basil, "is the true and perfect glorying in
God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own
righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in
true righteousness, and to be justified by faith alone in
Christ." 1 But, if the context be Âˇ duly considered, it
seems very doubtful whether Basil actually intended
any such thing as the doctrine of justification by faith
alone.
Some strong passages on justification by faith may
be found in Chrysostom ; 2 yet, in connection with his
comments, the student must also look at that .Father's
Homilies on Repentance. Ambrose repeats St. Paul,
that through faith alone the ungodly are justified with
God; but he also speaks of covering our errors with
good works and confessions. 3 Jerome declares, "We are
just when we confess ourselves sinners; and our righteousness comes not of any merit of our own, but of God's
mercy; for the Scriptures say, God hath concluded all
under sin, that He might have mercy upon all ; and this
is the highest righteousness of man, that what,ever he
has of virtue,.he should not think it his own, but God's
1

2
3

Basil, Homil. de Humil., XXII.
See Hom. VIII. on the Epist. to the Romans.
In Epist. ad Rom., IV. and Ep. LXX.

Theologzi:al Results.

[PART II.,

who gave it." 1 Here, the first part of the passage seems
to contain the forensic view; but the second part
glides into an experimental and spiritual strain, without
any clear distinction between the two aspects of salvation.
One cannot help seeing in what we have noticed the
effect of the Church system. That system did not
prevent the development of the doctrine of the Trinity,
and of certain views of Divine grace;. but a consistent
Âˇ view of a sinner's acceptance through faith, and a clear
distinction between this and spiritual renewal by the
Holy Ghost, must be impossible where the ecclesiastical
dogmas of the fifth and sixth centuries are upheld. An
exclusive human priesthood, a new birth by baptism,
and the meritoriousness of fasting and celibacy, must
supply a distorting medium through which evangelical
light can struggle only in subdued rays or in fitful
flashes.
It may not be irrelevant here to remark, that the
comparatively small amount of attention paid by some
of the Fathers to what may be called evangelical points,
is really a significant sign of the character of their
theology. Their omissions, as well as their assertions,
are instructive. Where they do not contradict each other,
they may differ from each other. Certainly a different
tone pervades the writings of Chrysostom from that
which we find in the works of Augustine. The latter
eagerly lays hold of truths which the former allows to
slip through his fingers. For example, Chrysostom
has little to say on the words, "By grace ye are
saved through faith ; " and when he dilates on God's
kindness towards us, through Jesus Christ, it is chiefly
1

Hieron. adv. Pelag., lib.

I.

c. 3.

A.D.

325-730.]

Eschatology.

159

to show that martyrdom may well be endured for His
sake.
What lies in the future continued to arrest the
thoughts of theologians. As time Âˇrolled on, the expectation of Christ's immediate appearance lost its hold more
and more on Christian minds in general; and gross conceptions of the resurrection and its consequences were
deprecated by Augustine; 1 but Jerome went so far as to
maintain, that the body raised from the grave will be
substantially the same as it is now, saying that blood and
bones and nerves are essential to a human frame, and
that even the hairs of the head will be restored. 2 Origen's
idea of final restoration lost ground; and the prevailing
opinion pointed to everlasting punishment-though some
believed in different degrees of suffering, as well as in
different degrees of blessedness. Augustine argued that
the word alwvws, in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew,
must have the same meaning in relation both to life and
punishment. Chrysostom, and even Pelagius, also maintained the perpetuity of future suffering. " It is superfluous," says Hagenbach, "to quote passages from other
Fathers, inasmuch as they all more or less agree." 3 The
notion of purifying fires at the last day gave place, after
the time of Origen, to a doctrine of purification by some
means between death and resurrection. Ambrose spoke
of all Christians passing through a fiery ordeal at the
last day; 4 Hilary coincided in some such an opinion
and Augustine remarks, that if it be said venial worldliness will be consumed in the fire of tribulation here or
hereafter, he will not contradict it, because it may be
1

2

Civ. Dei.,

XXII. 11-21.

Hagenbach's Hist. of Doctrines, I. p. 377.
' Com., Ps. xxxvii.

3

Ibid., p. 383.

160

Theological Results.

[PART II.

true." 1 This notion came to be so developed by Gregory
the Great, that he has been called the Inventor of
Purgatory. He certainly lays it down_as a doctrine to
be believed, that for minor faults there is a purgatorial
fire before the day of judgment ; and he also teaches a
deliverance from that painful discipline, by means of intercessory prayer and the oblation of the saving sacrament.
He founds his idea of the pardon of sin in a
future world on what our Lord says in Matthew xii. 31,
and then develops it into forms of thought purely
imaginative.
Yet, though definite statements may be found in both
Ambrose and Gregory, which have been used in support
of later dogmas, it should be stated that the writings of
these men contain passages which prove that they had
not reached that fixity of opinion on the subject of a
purifying discipline hereafter, which we find crystallized
in the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Ambrose
speaks of the Christian's death as any Protestant might
do. "We shall go where there is a paradise of joywhere Adam, who fell among thieves, has forgotten to
weep over his wounds; where the thief rejoices in the
kingdom of heaven; where are no clouds, no thunder,
no lightning, no storms of wind, no darkness, no night,
where neither summer nor winter will vary the seasons;
where no cold, or hail, or rain, nor the need of sun and
moon and stars, shall be known ; but God alone will be
the light thereof." 2 And even Gregory, though more
advanced than Ambrose in the direction of later views,
treats the subject now under consideration in a vague
1 De Civ. Dei, XXI. 26; but on this subject, as on some others,
Augustine is not always consistent.
2
De Bono Mortis, 12.

A.D.

325-730.]

Sacraments.

161

and general way. Unlike some of his contemporaries, he believed the dissolution of all things was approaching, when the sun would be darkened, and the
globe dissolved ; then referring 'to the twilight before
the day-daw!1, he speaks of the end of this world as
merging into the commencement of the world to
come. He compares the sufferings of the future, including spiritual anguish before the coming of the
Judge, to the trembling of the earth before the final
conflagration. 1
Sacraments rose in the estimation of the Nicene theologians. The Lord's Supper, from the beginning, even
regarded simply under a commemorative aspect, had a
dogmatic signification, and pointed to three fundamental
doctrines-the Divinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement of Christ. The very reverence thus inspired, when
under the influence of excited imagination, would perhaps
lead to erroneous conceptions of the nature of the elements; at all events, erroneous conceptions were formed
at an early period. Strong language was used respecting
baptism, as we have seen already ; and coming down to
Augustine, we find him declaring that those who underwent the holy rite were cleansed every whit; that little
ones were renewed by grace ; that original sin in their
cases was laid aside, the old man being put off, and the
new man put on. Yet such statements must be qualified
by his assertion, that whatever baptism might do, it would
not ultimately avail without inward holiness; and that
love alone makes the difference between the sons of God
and the devil's children. Opinions as t~ the Lord's
Supper were in advance of those previously entertained,
though they were sometimes of a highly sacramental
1

Dial. IV. 41.
M

Theological Results.

[PART II.

description. 1 Cyril of Jerusalem told his catechists that
they might be sure the body and blood of Christ were
given in the Eucharist ; that what seem only bread and
wine are not really so. 2 Chrysostom exhorted his congregation not to look at the consecrated elements as
though they were but material substances; they were
not, he said, subject to common physical laws, but were
absorbed without waste into the body of the participant.
Yet, though such language be v~ry decided, we do not
apprehend that Cyril and Chrysostom believed in_ the
doctrine of transubstantiation, as defined at a later period,
but were only incautiously proceeding along a line which
prepared for the ultimate scholastic development.
Ritualistic worship contributed to the expansion of
sacramental doctrine. The Canon Gregorius commenced
with commending the people's gifts and offerings to
the acceptance of God ; then followed prayers for the
king and the bishop, with a commemoration of our
Saviour's deeds and words in celebrating the Eucharist;
after which came an oblation of the sacraments, as a
sacrifice of bread and wine, and a petition that they might
be presented by the angels on the altar of heaven. Next
followed a commemoration of the departed faithful, and
praye_r for communion with them. 3 A passage occurring
in a homily on the Prodigal Son, printed in the works of
1 It is scarcely possible to speak of the priesthood in loftier
terms than those employed by Cyprian, Epist. ux., LXVI.
2 Cat. Leet., XXII.
3 Palmer's Orig. Lit., I. 123.
The text of the Gregoriaq Canon
is restored by Bunsen in his Hippolytus, vol. IV. p. 492, sq., and in his
Christianity andl'viankind, vol. VII. It has been thought impossible
to restore the text; but Bunsen gives apparently good grounds for
his own conclusions. See also Palmer, Orz'g. Lit., I. I 12. Bunsen
endeavours to shO\r, not q11ite satisfactorily, that early Criental

A.D. 325-730.J

Dionysius the Areopagite.

Chrysostom, but probably written by Severianus, a Syrian
bishop, informs us" that the choristers of the Holy, Holy,
Holy, had on their shoulders flying wings of linen, in
imitation of the angels," 1 to which, perhaps, reference is
made in the Liturgy ascribed to Chrysostom-" they who
mystically imitate the cherubim." The same Liturgy
details elaborate ceremonies, such as piercing the Eucharistic bread with a spear, also censing, lifting, kneeling,
bowing, kissing. The Liturgy, however, as we have it, is
of later date; but in Chrysostom's time there was much
pomp in Byzantine worship.

In closing this rapid review of theological doctrine
at the period of the fall of the Roman Empire, it is proper
to recognize the continued existence, and at length a
decided revival, of mystical theology. Between the third
and sixth centuries it waned considerably. Great divines,
such as Chrysostom and the Gregorys, and such as
Augustine and Ambrose, traversed a different path of
Christian thought, expounding and enforcitig fundamental dogmas in an orthodox way; but in the middle of
the sixth century we find works deeply imbued with the
spirit of a Christianized Neo-Platonism exerting a wide
and deep influence on religious opinions. They pass
under the name of DIONYSIUS the Areopagite, but are
cited, it is said, for the first time A.D. 53 1, in a letter
written by Isidore, Bishop of Maronia, which relates a
conference held at Constantinople by order of Justinian.
From that moment, these writings circulated with
liturgies exhibit a sacrifice for the people, even the faithful themselves
-that is, spiritual sacrifices, not a sacrifice of bread and wine.HipjJolytus, vol. IV. p. I 87.
1 Bu,nsen's HijJjJolytus, vol. IV. p. 198.
M 2

Theological Results.

[PART II.

rapidity, and began to affect the doctrinal sentiments of
the day. That they were composed by the Dionysius
mentioned in the Acts, has been maintained by very few.
Modern scholars justly deny their genuineness, and are
at a loss to determine when and where they originated.
They included, besides a few letters, treatises on Mystical
Theology; The Divine Names; The Celestial Hierarchy;
The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
The place which these remarkable writings occupy
in the history of theological literature has been represented in different ways: one critic, Baumgarten-Crusius,
believes that they were meant to oppose and overturn
Gnosticism by exhibiting a rival and superior system of
spiritual agencies, through a transfer of the Greek mysteries to Christianity; a theory which would refer them
to the third century, at which period there is no evidence of their existence; and another critic, Engelhardt,
with great probability, regards these works as a new
development of the N eoplatonic philosophy, the pagan
side of which Proclus had set himself to unfold.
The Mystical Theology seems to supply a key for the
interpretation of the other books. The doctrines laid
down in it have been thus condensed: "All things have
emanated from God, and the end of all is to return to
God. Such return-deification, he calls it-is the consummation of the creature, that God may finally be all in all.
A process of evolution-a centrifugal movement in the
Divine nature-is really substituted for creation. The
antithesis of this is the centripetal process, or movement
of involution, which draws all existence towards the poirit
of the Divine centre. The degree of real existence possessed by any being is the amount of God in that beingfor God is the ~xistence in all things. Yet He Himself

A.D.

325-730.]

Dionysius the Areopagite.

cannot be said -to exist, for He is above existence. The
more or less of God which the various creatures possess
is determined by the proximity of their order to the
centre." 1 God is described as without limitation, identical with goodness, the basis of life and felicity, and, like
the sun, pouring His vivifying beams over all existence.
More worthy conceptions of Him, we are told, can be
formed by a process of negation than in another way; for
as the imperfections of created nature do not exist in the
Creator, they must be stripped off from every thought of
God, as the ideal of perfect beauty is embodied in sculpture by chipping off one piece after another from a block
of marble.
The treatise on Divine Names contains an inquiry
into the Divine attributes, and the revelation of them in
various ways; and here we meet with a remarkable
illustration of prayer, which is compared to a rope thrown
from a rock, by which mariners who, while seeming to
draw the rock toward them, are really themselves
approaching the rock. The nature of evil is also discussed, and pronounced to be no real existence, but only
a defect. Christology like that of the New Testament
can nowhere Âˇbe discovered in these treatises, the human
appearance of our Lord being set forth simply as the
restored perfection of humanity, before destroyed by the
sins of men.
In the Celestial Hierarchy, Scripture names of angels
are distributed in three classes-the first including thrones,
cherubim, and seraphim, the second, powers, dominions,
and virtues, and the third, angels, archangels, and
principalities ; the writer, in commenting upon them,
enters into regions of pure imagination, where he indi1

Vaughan's Hours with the Mystics, vol._ r. p. 93.

166

Theological Results.

[PART 11;

cates how strongly his mind was imbued with mystical
notions of the universe.
In the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, parallels occur between
the heavenly hosts and the orders of the Church ministry ;
deacons, whose office is to purify, priests, whose business
is to illuminate, and bishops, who perfect what has been
begun by others, form an ascending scale, corresponding with angelic agencies ; and thus, with much really
rationalistic, there abounds much of the High Church
element.
The effect produced by these writings was very great.
It may be traced throughout the literature of the middle
ages, especially after John Erigena translated them from
Greek to Latin. Dionysius is cited with reverence by
Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas; Albertus Magni.is
commented upon his works; Tauler and Savonarola have
been claimed as his disciples ; and Dante, Spenser, and
MiltonÂˇ are placed within the sphere of his inspiration. 1
1
The works of Dionysius were edited by the Jesuit, Balth.
Corderius. Paris, 1615. There is a French translation of them by
L'Abbe Darboy, 1845. The article on him in Herzog is good; that
in the Dictionary of Chnstian Biography is better.

PART Ill.
FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY TO THE FULL DEVELOPMENT
OF SCHOLASTICISM.
A,D.

730-ro6o.

CHAPTER' I.
EASTERN DIVINES.

V

IGOROUS and active as the theological spirit had

been in the East, before and during the fifth century, its decline afterwards is manifest, save as we find it
struggling to exist in the Monophysite and Monothelite
controversies. Nevertheless, in the seventh century, we
light upon the revival of an old heresy in a new form.
Gnosticism and Manicheism retained a hold upon many
Oriental minds when the palmy season of these systems
had passed away; and in Armenia, about A.D. 653, there
lived a man of Manichcean descent, who cherished the
traditions of his family, and, after becoming acquainted
with the Gospels and with the Epistles of St. Paul, incorporated with the Christian faith some old Manichcean
principles. His name was Constantine, and he called
himself Silvanus ; others who imbibed his tenets assumed
the names of Titus, Epaphroditus, and Timothy. This
indicated their interest in the writings of the apostle ;
and, through their reverence for him, they received the
denomination of Paulicians. They revived the antipathy
to the Apostle Peter, which had existed at an early age;
and yet, it appears, they honoured the Apostle James as
well as the Apostle John. They rejected, it is said, the
Old Testament, and held the eternity of matter, and the
existence of two Gods-the one full of darkness and fire,
Creator of the world ; the other glorious and good, Lord
of the life to come. The old notion of a soul imprisoned
within the body is conspicuous in Paulici~nism ; to the

170

.flastern Divines.

[PART III.

identification of matter with God was added the denial
of our Lord's real incarnation, the rejection of Christian
sacraments, the refusal to recognize any order of ministers,Âˇ and the most determined opposition to the use of
the cross and of images in Christian worship. But the
Paulicians revered the Book of the Four Gospels, as containing the words of Jesus Christ. They assumed to
themselves exclusively the title of Christians, and fixed
on the Western Church the name of Romans. In all this,
there was not so much any new theological development
as a strange mixture of heterodoxy and orthodoxy, with
a revulsion of feeling against the superstitions of the
West. It is difficult to find in them much resemblance
. to the Apostle Paul.1
Orthodox theologians of Greek Christendom may be
reckoned up in considerable numbers, but only a few are
redeemed from oblivion. John of Damascus, Theodorus
Abucara, Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Nicolaus
of Methone, and Nicolaus of Thessalonica, alone require
notice in this limited review. Many of the Eastern
Medi.:evalists were chiefly, if not entirely, commentators,
biographers, annalists, and collectors of legendary stories.
JOHN OF DAMASCUS (who died about A.D. 754) wrote
an exposition of the Catholic faith-a mere compilation,
in which, according to his own admission, he put down
nothing of his own, but only presented what he had
selected from the "good and wise." Athanasius, Basil,
and the Gregorys, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others are
laid under contribution; and from these sources, exegetical and philosophical, as well as theological, matter i"s
copiously drawn ; the results not being presented in a
1 The Paulician opinions have given rise to much controversy.
See Histories by Mosheim, Gieseler, and Robertson.

A.D. 730-1o60.]

Theodorus Abucara.

171

harmonious or consistent form. The Divine existence,
the Trinity, the creation-including angels, the fall of
man, the person of Christ, baptism, faith, the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, and the Scriptures, are discussed
after an illogical order, in a treatise, consisting of four
books, entitled, an Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox
Faith. 1 It is sufficient to notice that John of Damascus,
whilst repudiating with Gregory of N azianzum the idea
of paying a ransom price to the devil, repeats the prevalent notion of a fraud practised on Satan, whom he oddly
represents as caught by the bait of God's hook, when
seizing on the body of Christ crucified; and as himself
destroyed by that sinless One. Looking at the moral
side of the atonement, after dropping the rhetorical
extravagance now noticed, the Damascene remarks, how
the Son of God, by His participation of our nature, has
raised us to the sphere of the incorruptible and abiding:
how, by and in Himself, He has renewed man in the image
of God, and through His resurrection has delivered
mortals from the realm of the transitory ; and, finally,
how by awakening the knowledge of God in our souls,
as well as by discipline, patience, and meekness, He has
redeemed us from the power of the devil. 2
THE0D0RUS ABUCARA flourished in the beginning of
the ninth century, and is to be distinguished from his
namesake, Bishop of Caria, in Thrace, with whom he is
often confounded. Abucara is an Arabic name, signifying
father or bishop of a small place in Syria, called Cara, or
Charran. He wrote no fewer than forty-three polemical
1 It may be found in the works of John of Damascus, edited by
Michael le Quien, Paris.
2 Ritschl, Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliatlon, p. 21.

172

Eastern Divines.

[PART III,

treatises, directed against Mohammedans, J acobites,
and Nestorians. In a work on The Incarnation, he
aims, with a truly Greek instinct, at precision of language
respecting this mysterious subject, carefully distinguishing between the word God as denoting the Trinity, and
the word as denoting the Second Person, who alone
assumed human nature ; this author also maintained
that the Divine Person was unaffected by the sufferings
experienced by the man Christ Jesus. In an essay on
Philosophical Terms, aimed at the Jacobite heresy, he
dwells upon a variety of abstract expressions, such as" individuality," and "hypostasis" or "person," remarking that
"hypostasis," "person," and "individual," are not to be
employed as convertible terms in relation to the Divine
nature of Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Spirit; for
neither of these, he remarks, can be spoken of as if they
were human individuals; and it is mischievous to use words
which would mean there were three Gods, instead of words
meaning that there is in the Godhead a Trinity in unityÂˇ 1
PHOTIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE (died about A.D. 891)
is to be placed " in the highest rank amongst Byzantine
writers. His position as one of the great promoters of the
schism between the Eastern and Western Churches gives
him an almost equal .eminence in ecclesiastical history ;
and his position, striking vicissitudes of fortune, and connection with the leading political characters of his day,
make him a personage of importance in the domestic
history of the Byzantine empire." 2 His Myriobiblion, or
- 1 The works of Theodorus Abucara are contained in vol. v. of
the Bibliotheca Patrum, De la Bigne, Paris, r 57 5: and in vol. ry. of
the second edit., 1589. Also in the Lectiones Antiqu{l! of Canisius,
I 604, vol. IV.
2 Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, art.
" Photius of Constantinople."

A.D. 730-1060.]

Photius and Nicolaus.

173

Bibliotheca, in two hundred and eighty divisions, is a vast
repository of erudition, containing notices of classical and
ecclesiastical authors and works-in fact, a" prototype of
our modern critical reviews." 1 Amongst the epistles of
Photius is an encyclical, on various theological topics,
particularly the procession of the Holy Ghost-the great
question in dispute between the Eastern and Western
Churches. A production entitled A mplzilochia is admitted,
even by an unfriendly censor, to be "a work filled with
vast and varied learning, and very needful for theologians
and expositors of Scripture." But it would seem that
the contributions made to theological literature by this
extraordinary person, who wonderfully combined industry as an author with activity as an ecclesiastic, amounted
to little if anything more than a repetition of old Greek
formularies of thought touching the Trinitarian and the
Monothelite controversies. As to the latter subject, it is
handled in the seventh question of the Amphilochia,
entitled, in the Latin version, De Christi Volzmtatibus
Gnomicis. Photius distinguishes between different kinds
of wills, and places the human will of our Lord in absolute subjection to His Divine nature. 2
NICOLAUS OF METHONE, in the Peloponnesus, where
he was archbishop, and lived probably in the twelfth century, entered into controversy with the Latin Church,
and is also mentioned as an opponent of N eo-Platonism ;
but he appears to have stepped over the limits of theological dissertation usually observed by Eastern divines,
and to have taken up questions chiefly discussed in
1
Robertson, vol. III. p. 42 l. The Myriobiblion was published
by Immanuel Becker, 2 vols., Berlin, 1824 and 1825.
2 The A mphilochia has been published in fragments at different
times. See Smith's Dictionary, art." Photius."

Eastern Divines.

1 74

[PART III.

the West. He deviates from the line pursued by John of
Damascus relative to the effect of our Lord's death. He
drops the idea of Satan being deceived by the method of
our salvation, and approximates to "another and more
scientific view, according to which the plan of redemption
was enforced with logical necessity from certain Divine
and human relations." 1 Indeed, it is thought he came
to conclusions somewhat similar to those which we shall
find hereafter were reached by great divines of the Latin
Church, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; and it is also
considered that he did so on grounds of his own, independently of what was going on in another part of Christendom ; but it would surely be a remarkable coincidence
that an Eastern theologian, within a century after the
publication of a singularly original work by a Western
divine, 2 should, left to himself, have hit upon somewhat
the same track of thought on a subject which, at the time,
does not seem to have much exercised Greek intellects.
Nicolaus, according to Ullmann, "agreed with Anselm"
(of whom we shall have much to say), " principally in
endeavou~ing to demonstrate that the Redeemer must
needs have been God and man, but differed from him in
this, that Anselm referred the necessity of the death of
Jesus to the Divine holiness, while Nicolaus brought it into
connection with the dominion of Satan over sinful men."
.It should be added, that another critic, Ritschl, thinks
Ullmann has overcharged his representation, and that
the theory of Nicolaus of Methone has no historical connection with Anselm, but is derived from the tract on the
Incarnation attributed to Athanasius. 3 Certainly the
1
3

words from Nicolaus, cited by Baur and Hagenbach, do
not appear sufficient to carry out the conclusion of more
than a very general resemblance between the Greek and
the Latin divines, inasmuch as they go little further than
asking the question, Who is able to release the world from
its slavery ?-and then giving as an answer, that it must
be one without sin ; and as God only is sinless, He alone
can deliver us; and to do so, He must assume our nature,
and so become susceptible of death.1
NICOLAUS CABASILAS, Archbishop of Thessalonica,
who lived about I 350, wrote a work on the Life'of Christ,
in which,-though described as treating principally of
baptism, the last unction, and the Eucharist,-the author
approaches much nearer to Anselm than does his namesake of Methone, for the following train of reasoning has
been gathered from this treatise: That men can make
no reparation to the injured honour of God; but that the
Divine man, alone competent, on whom lay no obligation,
graciously undertook the task; that consequently we
are, in the first place, freed from imprisonment through
the death of Christ, who bore for us the punishment of the
law ; and, in the second place, we become friends of God
and righteous persons through the efficacy of His death,
for not only did the Saviour reconcile us to the Father,
but He imparted to us the power of becoming children of
the Most High. The former, adds Nicolaus, was effected
by uniting our nature to Himself; the latter is accomplished through the power of the sacraments. 2 Such is
the doctrine of the Thessalonian divine, as expounded
by Ritschl.
1

Hagenbach, Hist. of Doct., vol. II. pp. 33-38.
A Latin version of the Lift of Christ was published in 1604,
and is reprinted in the Bibi. Patr., XXVI. p. 836. Ed. Lugd.
2

176

CHAPTER II.
WESTERN DIVINES.

recognized the authority of Holy Scripture, but
blended with it that of Fathers and Councils, whose
teaching was regarded as conclusive. To depart from
their decisions was perilous in the extreme. The age of
development became a standard for the age of traditionalism. No sufficient distinction appears to have been
made between the Divine ideal and the human apprehension of truth. The Church was supposed to be possessed
of the mind of God. That mind, of course, was regarded as
being in the Scripture ; but it was also regarded as having
divinely entered the intellects of such men as Ambrose
and Augustine. Streams struck out of other rocks than
God's Word were believed to have run into the reservoirs
of the Church ; and to these, rather than the sacred
fountain at once, religious teachers were wont to repair.
That fountain stood in the distance; and from magnificent
vessels placed before it the faithful sought to draw living
water.
Guizot justly remarks," From the epoch at which we
are now, the essential character of the theological spirit
is, never to examine things in themselves, but to judge
of all ideas by their relations to certain determined principles. The theologians in this respect have played the
same part in modern Europe as was played by the jurisconsults in the Roman world. The Roman jurisconsults
did not examine what we call the general principles of
law, or natural law; they had for their point of departure

T

HEY

A.D.

730-1060.]

Biblical Interpretation.

177

certain axioms, certain legal precedents ; and their skill
consisted in subtilly unravelling the consequences, in order
to apply them to particular cases as they presented themselves. Thus the Roman jurisconsults were logicians of
admirable ingenuity and accuracy, but they were never
philosophers. The theologians of the Middle Ages were
similarly constituted ; they applied themselves to the
same kind of work, and attained the same excellencesnamely, accuracy and logical subtlety; and fell into the
same faults-namely, want of attention to facts themselves, and of any feeling for reality." 1
And as with theological discussion, so also, and even
to a greater extent, it was with Biblical interpretation.
A measure of originality appears in the comments made
upon Scripture by the Nicene and later Fathers ; but
" about the seventh and eighth centuries this originality
disappears: the oral or traditionary teaching, which
allowed scope to the individual teacher, became hardened
into a written tradition, and henceforward there is a uniform, invariable character as well as substance of Seri pture
interpretation.
Perhaps we should not err in putting Gregory the
Great as the last of the original commentators ; for
though very numerous commentaries on every book of
Scripture continued to be written by the most eminent
doctors, in their own names, probably not one interpretation of any importance would be found in them which
could not be traced to some older source. So that all
later comments are in fact catenas, or selections from
the earlier Fathers, whether they present themselves
expressly in the form of citations from their volumes,
or are lections upon the Lesson or Gospel for the day ;
1

Lectuns on Civilz'zation, vol. II. p. 363.
N

Western Divines.

178

[PART III.

extempore, indeed, in form, but, as to their materials,
drawn from the previous studies and stores of the
expositor." 1
Nevertheless, in theological dissertations, though independent appeals to the Bible were neglected, though
free thought according to Protestant notions could not
be allowed, scope remained for mental activity; first,
in discovering metaphysical grounds for ideas handed
down by the Fathers ; secondly, in the illustration of
what those distinguished men had taught. Any conclusions against their doctrines was heresy; an appeal
to Scripture in support of such conclusions would have
been futile ; but reasonings in support of what they had
taught, and developments of their oracular decisions,
while, on the one hand, they gave play to active intellects, were, on the other, within the landmarks of strict
orthodoxy.
It is a grave mistake to imagine that medi::eval divines
were mere passive recipients of what they found in volumes on their scanty shelves. Not merely a photographic process went on when certain minds were
opened to receive the light. No philosopher ever examined a sunbeam with more care than they analyzed
sentiments to them as celestial as any sunbeams. The
amount of thought they expended on their studies surpasses what is commonly supposed. Many, no doubt,
were barren copyists, tracing line for line, like the merest
drudge in the Abbey scriptorium. A few, however,
could, as in calligraphy so in their glosses, illuminate
what they copied. The medi::eval Latins in this respec;:t
form a contrast to the medi::eval Greeks. From the
latter the busy, thoughtful habits of their fathers had
l

Catena Aurea, Oxford, vol.

1.,

pref. p. ii,

A.D.

730-1060.]

Bede.

1 79

departed ; their literature, like their art, was stiff and
stereotyped ; but Latin literature gave signs of budding
life, though biting frosts held back the spring.
BEDE, the monk of ]arrow (A.D. 674-735),crosses theÂˇ
edge of division between this and the former chapter, and
claims notice, not as a historian, but as his writings bear
on theology. He was a commentator of the allegorical
class, and gave proofs of ability in critical exegesis ;
but beyond this he attempted a reconciliation between
science and the Bible, by propounding a curious system
of cosmography, and by striving to harmonize it with
the history of Moses and the other sacred writers ;
thus anticipating a kind of literature which has become
rather abundant in these days ; but his name is more
associated, though but slightly, with the history of dogma
through stories which he tells of visions relating to purgaâ&#x20AC;˘
tory, showing advance in the development of that idea.
Probably such visions fixed that idea more firmly upon
common minds, especially those possessed of imagination;
and hence it may be well to give an extract from Âˇa story he
relates, in order to exhibit it, not as anything worthy of
being called theological instruction, but as something in
.that rude age which served to promote a theological purpose. Speaking of a certain holy man named Fursey,
Bede says he had visions of God, and that "when he had
been lifted up on high he was ordered by the angels that
conducted him to look back upon the world. Upon
which, casting his eyes downward, he saw as it were a dark
and obscure valley underneath him. He also saw four
fires in the air not far distant from each other. Then,
asking the angels what fires those were, he was told they
were the fires which would kindle and consume the world.
One of them was of falsehood, when we do not fulfil that
N 2

180

Western Divines.

[PART III.

which we promised in baptism, to renounce the devil and
all his works. The next of covetousness, when we prefer
the riches of the world to the love of heavenly things.
The third of discord, when we make no difficulty to offend
the minds of our neighbours even in needless things.
The fourth of iniquity, when we look upon it as no crime to
rob and to defraud the weak. These fires, increasing by
degrees, extended so as to meet one another, and being
joined became an immense flame. When it drew near,
fearing for himself, he said to the angel, ' Lord, hehold,
the fire draws near me.' The angel answered, 'That
which you did not kindle shall not burn you ; for though
this appears to be a terrible and gre;J.t fire, yet it tries
every man according to the merits of his works ; for every
man's concupiscence shall burn in the fire; for as every
one burns in the body through unlawful pleasure, so when
discharged of the body he shall burn in the punishment
which he has deserved.'" 1
ALCUIN (A.D. 735-804) is described as a man "with
a mind doubtless more active and extensive than any
around him, except that of Charlemagne; superior in
instruction and intellectual activity to any of his contemporaries, without elevating himself much above them .
by the originality of his knowledge of ideas ; in a word,
a faithful representative of the intellectual progress of his
epoch, which he outstripped in all things, but without
ever separating himself from it." 2 His activity appears
in collecting arid restoring ancient MSS., reviving public
schools, and imparting instruction by writings of his
own. In none of his works does he manifest origin-Âˇ
ality; he chiefly compiles what he has to say out of
1 Bede's Hist., lib. III. c. 19.
2 Guizot, Lectures on Civilization, vol. II. p. 230.

Alcuin. Âˇ

A,D, 730-1060.]

181

previous writings, and by so doing claims commendation
for learning, and a faculty for communicating what he
had learned. He probably wrote what are called the
Libri Caroli, intendea to vindicat~ the moderate side in
the controversy about images, and which differ to some
extent from the papal authority of that day ; but he is
said to have become more contracted in his views as age
advanced, and to him is ascribed the inspiration of a
reverence for Rome in the minds of the Franconian
clergy.1 What concerns us here is Alcuin's character
and contribution as a theologian. In this respect his
merits are inconsiderable.
Amongst his letters to Charlemagne, his patron and
friend, we find one written in the year 796, in which he
gives an outline of theological study. "The method,"
he says, "I think, should be that which the blessed
Augustine has laid down in his book On the instruction
ef the simpl~-minded." Students, he thought, should first
be taught the general facts of the soul's immortality, a
future life, and the everlasting duration of our destiny.
From natural Alcuin advances to revealed religion ;
but his treatment of this is most unsatisfactory. The
pupil, he says, should be told for what crimes and sins
eternal punishment with the devil and his angels will be
inflicted, and for what good actions he will be rewarded
in the presence of Christ with eternal glory. Alcuin,
moreover, recommended a careful inculcation of faith in
the Holy Trinity and in the coming of Jesus Christ
for the salvation of mankind. In this very meagre outline the writer merely falls back upon the example of
Augustine, whom in fulness he attempts not to follow.
Alcuin scarcely ever appears to rise above the low level
1

Herzog, Cyclop., art. "Alcuin." .

182

Western Divines.

[PART III,

indicated in the above passage. He wrote commentaries
full of allegorical and moral meanings, after the manner
of more gifted predecessors; he prepared liturgical works
for the use of the clergy in Divine offices ; and he
engaged in controversy relative to the nature and
person of our blessed Saviour. Adoptionism, as it is
called, which found at the time a good many advocates,
appears to have been a revival of N estorianism, and consisted in the idea of our Lord, regarded as man, being the
proper Son of David, and only the adopted Son of God.
The Divine and human natures in our Lord were regarded as so separate, that the Divine appears dwelling
within the human after a manner somewhat similar to
that in which the Spirit of God dwells in the hearts of
Christian believers. Indeed, it would seem that one of
the teachers of this opinion, a Spanish bishop named
Felix, compared the Divine adoption of Christ's humanity
to that of the Divine adoption of Christ's true disciples ;
only he said the relation was superior in its degree.
Against Adoptionism Alcuin wrote a distinct work in
seven books, and also a letter to the bishops of
Southern France, in all of which he took the orthodox
side, maintaining the doctrine of the incarnation as
taught in Scripture and explained in the writfogs of
those Fathers who had opposed such phases of opinion
as were grouped under the name of the N estorian
heresy.1
Besides these theological treatises, Alcuin wrote a
body of Church divinity, entitled De Fide Trinitatis,
following in the steps of Augustine, and also a dissertation, De Processione Spiritus Sancti, defending the
Western dogma, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
1

Hardwick's Middle Ages, p. 67; Robertson, Hist., vol. III. p. 153.

A.D. 730-1060.]

Gottschalk.

Father and the Son, against the distinctive idea of the
Eastern Church, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father only.
GOTTSCHALK, who died A.D. Âˇ870, was in early life a
monk of Fulda, under the guidance of a distinguished
theologian, Rabanus Maurus ; afterwards he became an
inmate of the Cloister of Orbais, iri the diocese of Soissons
in France. He appears to have been a devout and
earnest thinker, exceedingly zealous for the doctrine of
salvation by grace, in this respect keeping close to
Augustine; for, with pungent views of sin, he looked for
acceptance with God through the work of Christ alone,
and clung with invincible tenacity to the redemptive
power of the gospel. But he seems to have been very
one-sided, as men of strong views are apt to be. His
opinions were narrow and rigid, and he showed himself
a theorist of adventurous temper. He did what his
great master in theology had not attempted to do.
Augustine's theory of predestination had looked simply
on the side of redemption and grace. Gottschalk pushed
out the theory on the other side, that of reprobation ; and
he held that the Divine decrees included both salvation
and perdition. He believed that God foreknew before
-the ages whatever was about to be done, and comprehended all within the range of His plans and purposesy et it has been argued that Gottschalk meant to indicate
the different relations in which God stands to good and
evil-ordaining the first, and only permitting the second.
Neander says, "He referred God's predestination not to
sin, but only to good, but foreknowledge to sin and
good at the same time; and goodness as an object of
the Divine predestination he defined as twofold-the
blessings of Divine grace and the decisions of Divine

Western Divines.

[PART III.

justice." 1 But it appears that Gottschalk so comprehended
both within the lines of the Divine will, that when he wa3
called upon to confess that God only foresaw evil, but
predestinated good, he declined to accept that representation. He had evidently a metaphysical turn of a very
subtle description; and those who are familiar with
controversies on these profound and perplexing subjects
will be slow to conclude what his opinions really were
from the reports of antagonists. He aimed at a systematic and comprehensive view of the Divine government ;
and regarding it as extending over the whole universe,
he endeavoured to find among the objects it controls
a place for the existence of evil as well as the existence
of good. And there can be no doubt of his having held
this opinion, that all for whom Christ shed His blood were
predestinated to salvation, and are infallibly brought to
the enjoyment of life eternal; and that those for whom
the Son did not assume a human body, and did not pour
out His life-blood, the Father was unwilling to save,
because He foresaw they would be the worst of sinners,
and therefore He decreed them to eternal punishment. 2
Gottschalk was opposed by RABANUS MAURUS, who
after leaving Fulda became Archbishop of Mayence.
He, like other orthodox teachers of the period, believed
in the doctrine of Divine decrees ; but he carefully distinguished between predestination and foreknowledge,
and on that ground entered the lists against the zealous
predestinarians. But HINCMAR, Archbishop of Rheims,
proved a still more formidable antagonist ; for, not satisfied with taking up his pen, he caused Gottschalk to be Âˇ
1

imprisoned, and having refused him the viaticum, remarked after his death that he had gone to his own place.
Amulo, Archbishop of Lyons, wrote against Gottschalk;
but Remigius, the next who occupied that see, took
part with the persecuted theologian. He contended that
Gottschalk had been misrepresented ; yet, whilst leaning
a little to the theology of the accused, he was willing to
leave the question in debate to be settled by a council of
the Church. Hincmar, irritated by any defence of his
antagonist, returned to the charge, and his party asserted
afresh the opinions opposed by Gottschalk. After further
contention a synod assembled at Valence in A.D. 855,
when universal redemption was treated as a great error;
and it was declared that the sin of man was an object
not of Divine predestination, but only of Divine foreknowledge; further, that whilst amongst the multitude
of the redeemed some were saved unto eternal life, because through the grace of redemption they remained
faithful, others, because they were unwilling so to remain,
would by no means attain to the plenitude of salvation
and the enjoyment of everlasting blessedness.
We have to notice next a far different theologian
from either Gottschalk or Hincmar.
JOHN ScoTUS ERIGENA (A.D. 810-877) was no cloistered monk, but a man who mixed with the world, who
was boon companion with Charles the Bald, and could
crack jokes with the monarch at table. He read Greek
and studied Plato, and built up a pile of transcendental
philosophy. Erigena employed himself in translating
some of the writings of the so-called Dionysius the
Areopagite,-the translation is included in Erigena's
works; and the influence of the writer on Erigena is
apparent to every one who compares the productions of

186

1Vestern Divines.

[PART III.

the two. Erigena devised a theory of the universe in
which God appears first and last-the fountain whence
all being flows, the ocean into which it finally rolls. He
grappled with the problem of God and nature, and the
relations between them,in a Neo-Platonic fashion, reviving
the ideas of the Alexandrine school respecting the identity of subject and object, and the resolution o_f personal
individuality into a phenomenon of the absolute. In his
De Divisione Naturm,1 a work in five books, containing
a dialogue between a master and his disciple, Erigena
divides the universe into what creates and is not created;
1 We here subjoin a notice of Erigena' s work by a theologian of
a very opposite school, one who had no sympathy with mystic or
transcendental speculations.
"The Treatise on the Division of Nature," says Dr. Hampden,
"i. an extremely curious monument of his peculiar genius, and of
the times when it was composed. It is perhaps the most scientific
development of the system of pantheism which has ever appeared.
It regularly deduces all existence from the reality of the Divine
Being-the only nature according to him that has any proper objective reality. Viewed as a whole, it illustrates the vast but delusive
power of the ancient metaphysics as an instrument of speculation,
the ingenuity and subtlety with which the thread of connection is
carried through the series of phenomena giving the plausibility of
a real Divine philosophy. The dryness of the abstract disquisitions
pursued in the work requires no ordinary patience of attention to
go through its details. But it is not unworthy of that attention on
the part of those who would fully study the history of the human
mind or the state of opinion in the Church of the ninth century."
-Scholastic Philosophy considered (Bampton Lecture), p. 416.
Âˇ
I would add that the study of Erigena is most interesting in
connection with the speculations of what is called the Christian
pantheistic school of the present day. If in any sense Erigena can
be called a pantheist, his pantheism was very different from that
cold, metaphysical theory which often goes by the nam~. Erigena
clearly distinguished between that which creates and that w~ich is
created-a distinction fatal to pure pantheism.

A.D. 730-1060.]

. '.John Erigena.

187

what is created and creates ; what is created and does
not create ; what neither creates nor is created. By the
first he means God the Creator ; by the second, the principles or primordial causes of things ; by the third, the
effect of those causes ; and by the fourth, God, as the
end of all created being. This remarkable work is intended to prove created natures will return one day into
those not created, and that at the end of the world there
will remain nothing but God and the principles of all
things in Him, as before the creation there was nothing
but God and those principles.
His speculations in the third book often run in a
vein of mysticism, and he insists strongly upon all things
having been eternally in the Word of God, for which he
cites the words of St. John : "All things were made by
Him, and without Him nothing is made ; " but the fundamental theme of his first book, that which creates and
is not created, involves a distinction between the Creator
and the created ; and at the opening of the fourth book
he describes the Deity as a superessential nature (superessentialis natura), as the creative cause of all things, and
as a coessential Trinity in three subsistences. 1 For this
reason he can hardly be called a pantheist, in the usual
acceptation of the term.
The connection of Erigena's ideas with those of
N eo-Platonism appears from their nature as well as from
their history. Links may be traced between the Irishman
and philosophers of the second century ; further, there
may be noticed an approach in his theory to Indian
speculations on the absorption of the world in Brahma.
And this Oriental dream, in the case of Erigena, blends
with other elements of thought, drawn from Plato and
1 De Dz'visione Natur~, III. ยง 8; IV. ยง 1.

188

Western Divines.

[PART III,

Aristotle, from Augustine and Dionysius. Not only
is he the recipient of varied metaphysical influences,
he also anticipates, but in some respects only, modern
theories propounded by Spinoza, Descartes, and Hegel.
All this is very remarkable. Worthy of careful study is
this man, in the heart of the Middle Ages speculating
upon the universe in a tone of mystic rationalism not
unlike certain speculatists of our own age. Yet while
Erigena's book on the Division of Nature is full of
thoughts such as have long agitated Germany, and are
now agitating England, there is a medi~val stamp on
his work from beginning to end. He never openly and
plainly repudiates tradition, never sets its authority at
defiance, any more than he does that of Scripture. He
continually cites the Old and New Testaments, and he
also speaks of truth as transmitted by the Fathers for
the use of after generations, and he frequently quotes
them, especially Gregory and Augustine ; indeed, it is
with an apparent horror of heresy that Erigena cites the
words of the latter: "We do not communicate in the
sacraments with those whose doctrines we disapprove." 1
Yet he found or made a loophole by which to escape
1 De Divind Prcedest., c. r. ยง r.
The English reader may see a pretty full account of Erigena's
Division ef Nature in Sharon Turner's History of England during
the Middle Ages, iv. 492; also Guizot's Hist. ef Civ., ii. 383. For
the information of those who may wish to procure the original works
of Erigena, it may be stated that they form volume cxxii. of the
Patrologice Cursus Compldus, published in Paris, 1853. Professor
Strasbourg, published in 1843 an interM. St. Rene Tai!landier,
esting monologue, Scot Erigene et la Philosophie Scholastique.
In the first chapter he briefly but distinctly traces various influences
which contributed to the production of Erigena's philosophical
theology. Matter, in his Histoire du Christianisme, refers to a still
unedited work by this author on the Intuition of God.

05

A.D. 730-1060.]

Yohn Erigena.

from patristic conclusions, and even from Scripture
statements ; for he said that both the Fathers and the
sacred writers employed to a large extent, in consideration of human weakness, figurative language, which
requires to be explained on philosophical principles,
that is to say, according to the writer's own private
speculations. It was a fundamental principle with this
author, that there are not two studies-one of philosophy
and another of religion, but one single comprehensive
study- true philosophy being true religion, and true
religion being true philosophy.
Yet for what he regarded as the genuine meaning of
Divine revelation he professed, and no doubt felt, a deep
reverence. " 0 Lord Jesus," he exclai_ms, " no other
reward, no other blessedness, no other joy do I ask of
Thee than that I may understand purely, and without
any error through fallacious theories, Thy words which
have been inspired by the Holy Ghost! For this is my
highest felicity, and the end of perfected contemplation,
because nothing beyond it can the rational and purest
soul discover. For as we can seek nothing elsewhere
more suitable than Thy words, so we can find nothing
more clear (apertius) than what is in them. There Thou
dwellest, and there Thou introducest those who seek and
love Thee. There Thou preparest spiritual feasts of true
knowledge for Thine elect, and there, entering in, Thou
ministerest unto them. And what, 0 Lord, is Thy passing through but an infinite ascent by degrees in the contemplation of Thee? Thou enterest into the intellects
of those who seek and find Thee. Thou wilt be found
in Thy Theophanies, where, as in mirrors, Thou wilt meet
there minds that understand Thee. Thou wilt not always
suffer them to understand what Thou art fSsentially, but

Western Divines.

(PART III,

what Thou art not, and because Thou art. Thou wilt
not be found of them in Thine own superessential nature,
in which Thou transcendest and surpassest all human
intellige11ce wishing and striving to comprehend Thee.
Thou affordest, therefore, to Thine own Thy presence
after an ineffable mode of manifestation ; Thou passest
over them by the mysterious loftiness and infinity of
Thine essence." 1
Besides the philosophical work on the division of
nature, John Erigena wrote a treatise on predestination ;
and here again the philosopher, no less than the theologian, makes his appearance. He asks, "What is the
purpose of true philosophy but to exhibit the rules of
true religion, whereby we humbly adore and rationally
seek God, who is the first and supreme cause of all things?
Whence it follows that true philosophy is true religion,
and true religion true philosophy." 2
The treatise on predestination is aimed at Gottschalk,
whose narrow system this critic ascribes to ignorance of
Greek learning. He objects, on metaphysical grounds,
to the idea of God's predestinating and God's foreknowing the future, because to Him all things are present ;
but, he says, if such expressions are allowable, then it
must be admitted that Divine predestination is eternal.
Predestination, he remarks, relates to what is good, not
to what is evil, which he contends is Augustine's idea
rightly understood. He asserts the freedom of the will,
and that sin is only the absence of righteousness, and
punishment the defect of bliss. God is neither the author
of sin nor of punishment ; the first being the corruption
of our nature, the second the consequence of that corruption. Fire is not needful as penal suffering, for the misery
1

De Div., lib. v. (Opera,

1010).

I

Div. Prmdest., c.

I.

ยง

I,

:John Erigena.

A.D. 730--106o.]

of pride and other passions are torment enough. Knowledge and ignorance are with this divine the two main
elements of human excellence and human degradation.
"Inasmuch as there is no bliss but eternal life, and eternal life is the knowledge of truth, there is no other bliss
than the knowledge of truth." This position he supports
by quoting the words, "He who loveth Me is loved by
My Father also; and I will love him, and manifest Myself
unto him." " This is life eternal, that they may know
Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou
hast sent." "And so," he adds, " if there be no misery
but eternal death, then eternal death is ignorance of the
truth, and there is no other misery than the ignorance of
truth ; where, therefore, ignoranceÂˇ of truth exists, life
does not exist. But where there is no life, it is necessary
there should be continual death. If things be so, who
shall dare to say that God is the predestinator of punishment, unless he dares to assert that God is the author
of ignorance, whilst from Him comes all intelligence ? " 1
This passage affords a fair specimen of Erigena's method
of reasoning ; and it is apparent at a glance that in this
strain there was a good deal to offend his orthodox
friends, whilst he contended against one whom they
counted a heterodox foe. He proceeded on philosophical ground, which led him into paths where Hincmar
and others were not at all disposed to follow him. The
current spirit of the age, whilst it mingled philosophy
with religion, kept philosophy in subjection to religion;
but Erigena, whilst apparently like others in this respect, was really changing the relationship between the
two subjects, and bringing religion into subordination to
philosophy.
1

Div. Prcedest., e.

XVII.

Western .Dimnes.

[PART III.

Erigena's De Divisione Naturm was condemned by
Pope Honorius, and, on its publication by Gale in 1681,
was inserted in the index of forbidden works ; but some
of Erigena's theological writings have, I believe, been
held in esteem by Roman Catholic divines.
It must not be forgotten that he, in some of his philosophical speculations, but especially by his translation of
"Dionysius the Areopagite_," was a precursor of media:!val
mysticism as well as scholastic realism. Spiritual kinship with him, in this respect, has been claimed on behalf
of Bernard, Hugh and Richard de Victor, Bonaventura,
and Gerson.
"The mystics," remarks M. St. Rene Taillandier,
"like the scholastics, attached themselves to John Scotus
Erigena. The translator of St. Dionysius the Areopagite,
the enthusiastic thinker who had developed mystical
doctrines, could not help influencing all who formed
during the Middle Ages such a mighty family, scaling,
as they said, up to the summits of contemplation." 1
"It is Scotus Erigena," this critic also remarks, "who is
the legitimate ancestor of these mystical monks, of whom
Richard of St. Victor is the most earnest representative ..
The principal characteristics of this school at which I
take a rapid glance are those which first appeared in
him. I would not say that they rest entirely with a
single founder ; this mysticism comes from other sources.
Its origin is in Christianity itself, and its nourishment
has been derived from the living well-springs of St.
Augustine ; but if it be hidden in the writings of the
Bishop of Hippo, it took in the Middle Ages a more
distinct form. It is in the writings of Scotus Erigena
that we see it more clearly disengaged to pass from
1

Scot Erig-ene et la Philosophie Scholastique, p.

216.

A.D, 730-1000.]

Scotus Erigena.

193

him into the period which followed. The physiological
study of the spiritual affections, care to regulate the
transports of thought, prudence to restrain perilous tendencies, and in the doctrine of un'ion with God a decided
maintenance of individual personality,-here we have the
general traits of the mysticism of Scotus, developed by
Hugh and St. Bernard, and raised to its highest value
by Richard of St. Victor, who bequeathed it without
reserve to his successors St. Bonaventura and Gerson." 1
" I repeat it," adds Taillandier, " Scotus Erigena, the
father of scholasticism, the precursor of so many great
spirits who have done honour to the Church, was destined
to become an object of suspicion to his own descendants,
and to the eager r~searches of a school unworthy of him,
which seized illegitimately from him the power of his
name and works. He is never cited by some who
evidently attach themselves to his philosophy, and he is
followed by men that. misrepresent him ; so. that after
a superficial examination, a deceived historian can
completely misrepresent St. Bonaventura, and say, that
if the doctors descended from St. Augustine and from
St. Anselm, the preachers from St. Gregory and from
St. Bernard, and the mystics from St. Dionysius the
Areopagite and from Richard of St. Victor, all the occult
doctrines of the Middle Ages, all the extravagance? of
the pantheists, mystics, and Manicheans belong to Scotus
Erigena." 2
John Erigena was a many-sided man, and his writings
present a curious combination of theological elements.
A profound reverence for Scripture and a frequent appeal
to its authority may be thought logically inconsistent with
1
2

Scot Engene et la Philosophz't Scholastique, p.
Ibid. p. 231.
0

225.

Western Divines.

194

[PART III,

submission to Church traditionalism. So also rationalism and mysticism appear to many as antagonistic
systems or principles; yet all four may be detected
as to-existent and co-operating in the ingenious and
often perplexing speculations of this most remarkable
author.
Contemporary with John Erigena was HAYMO, a
monk of Fulda, chosen bishop of the picturesque city of
Halberstadt, on the borders of the Hartz district. Though
he joined in the condemnation of Gottschalk,-a significant circumstance in the life of such a man,-he wrote
in an evangelical strain, commended by Milner in his
Church History. " By the book of life we ought to
understand the Divine predestination, as it is written, The
Lord knoweth them that are His." "Man of himself
departing from God, returns not of himself to God ; God
works all in all : by which words human arrogance is
removed, since without the Holy Spirit our weakness
can effect no real good, whether great or small." "We
are not only unable to perfect any good without Divine
grace and mercy preceding and following us, but not
even to think any. For the grace of God prevents us,
that we may be willing, and follows us, that we may be
able. Every good that we have, the good will, and the
good work, is not from ourselves, but from God." 1
We see that the ninth century could boast of a group
of singularly active intellects in different countries, as we
think of the names which have just passed under review,
especially the English Alcuin, the Syrian Theodorus
Abucara, the Greek Photius, the German Gottschalk, the
French Hincmar, and John Erigena the Irishman. The
last three of these plunged into the controversy just
1

Milner's Ch. Hist., vol. III. p. 255.

A.D. 730-ro6o.]

Radbert; Maurus.

195

indicated on the metaphysical subject of predestination;
and whilst that controversy was going on, another, touching the metaphysical raspects of the matter of the
Eucharist, occupied the attention of a wide circle of
divines, scarcely less keen in their dialectic ability.
Paschasius Radbert, elected Abbot of Corbie in A.D. 844,
wrote a treatise On the Body and Blood of the Lord, in
which he maintained that after consecration, though the
appearance of bread and wine continued the same, nothing else was really present than the flesh born of the
holy Virgin. 1 He accounted this a miracle, and cited in
support of his view stories of other miracles, whilst claiming to be an exponent of the Catholic faith touching the
Lord's Suppei:. , But Rabanus Maurus and others denied
this claim, and objected to the notion of any material
change-any change beyond that which is spiritual-as
an entire novelty. The chief of Radbert's opponents was
Ratramnus, a monk of Corbie. He entered on the examination of two questions: Are the body and blood of
Christ really present or figuratively present ? Is it the
same body as was born of the Virgin, died on the cross,
rose from the grave, and ascended to heaven ? To the
first question he replies, "It is evident that bread and
wine are figuratively the body and blood of Christ.
According to the substance of the elements, they are
after consecration what they were before, for the bread is
not Christ substantially. If this mystery be not done in
a figure, it cannot be called a mystery. The wine, also,
which is made the sacrament of the blood of Christ by
the consecration of the priest, shows one thing by its
outward appea-rance and combines another inwardly; for
what is there visible outwardly but only the substance of
l

C. I.
0 2

10.

Western Divines.

Âˇ [PART III.

the wine? These things are changed, but not according
to the material part ; and by this change they are not
what they here appear to be, but are something else
besides what is their proper being. For they are made
spiritually the body and blood of Christ; not that the
elements be two different things, but in one respect they
are, as they appear, bread and wine, and in another the
body and blood of Christ." Again, he says afterwards,
"A little before His passion He was able to change the
substance of bread and the creature of wine into His own
body, which was to suffer, and into His blood, which was
afterwards to be shed." To the second inquiry Ratramnus
answers," The body of Christ in which He suffered is one
thing, and the blood which was shed for tl].e salvation of
the world is one, yet the sacraments of these things have
obtained their names, so that they are called the body
and blood of Christ, since they are so called on account
of their resemblance to the things which they denote." 1
We prefer leaving Ratramnus to speak for himself; and on
a careful consideration of his words, the reader perhaps
will be at a loss to determine exactly what the opinion
of this medi~val writer was on its positive side. That he
rejected Radbert's theory is very clear; that he could not
have had any such notion of the change in the Eucharist
as is defined by the word transubstantiation is also plain;
but what he positively meant by the bread and wine
being " made spiritually the body and blood of Christ " is
by no means obvious. We might conclude that he intended to say that the elements became spiritual figures;
but afterwards we come upon the expression "able toÂˇ
change the substance of bread and the creature of wine
into His own body;" yet before that, we find him
1

De Corpon et Sanguine Domini,English translation,Oxford, 1838.

A.D.

730-1060.]

Hincmar; Ratramnus.

197

distinctly saying, " The bread and wine are figuratively
the body and blood of Christ."
Two of the writers engaged ~n the predestination controversy cross our path as we examine this controversy
about the Eucharist. Hincmar supported Paschasius ;
but it is doubtful how his language is to be interpreted;
how much is to be taken as plain statement, and how
much as mere rhetoric-a difficulty which continually
meets us as we strive to sift polemical writings on this
question. 1 John Erigena is said to have com,posed a book
on the Eucharist ; but some quotatfons, professedly from
his work, correspond with passages found in Ratramnus.
Gieseler thinks Erigena did not compose a treatise of this
kind ; but Christlieb supposes that he might have given
an opinion on the two questions in a short letter to
Charles the Bald, who is said to have proposed them ;
and that hence the book of Ratramnus, which first appeared anonymously, might come to be regarded as
Erigena's. 2 This, however, is mere supposition. From
his De Divisione Naturm, and from an imperfect commentary on St. John first brought to light by M. Ravaisson in I 849, "it would seem his view of the sacrament
was connected with a belief that the Saviour's body was
changed after the resurrection into a reasonable soul,
which is everywhere present." In Erigena's exposition
of Dionysius the Areopagite, says Canon Robertson, he
speaks against those who hold the visible Eucharist to
signify nothing beyond itself. 3
Quite outside the circle of this disputation in the
ninth century, we meet in the tenth century with the
famous Saxon letter and homilies of LElfric, in which he
1
3

declares that the bread and wine, daily hallowed by the
hands of the priest, " in ghostly mystery," are not bodily
so, they are not the self-same body as that in which
Christ suffered ; n'or is the holy wine" the Saviour's blood
which was shed for us in bodily thing, but in ghostly
understanding. Both be truly that bread His body, and Âˇ
that wine also His blood, as was the heavenly bread which
we call manna that fed forty ye~rs God's people." 1
These controversies have a special interest for those
who attach importance to Church authority; and therefore the works just cited have become battle-fields for
many modern polemics ; and every student of theological opinions must cherish a laudable curiosity respecting the subject; yet those who base their religious belief
upon the exclusive authority of Holy Scripture will not
consider any important practical consequences to be
involved in theÂˇ historical conclusions reached, as they
leave untouched all vital convictions immediately derived
from the records of revelation. If we may anticipate a
little, it may be here observed that at a still later date the
Eucharistic controversy reappeared in France. BERENGAR,
Archdeacon of Angers (A.D. I040), in a vacillating fashion,
and with repeated contradictions, maintained what were
deemed heterodox opinions touching the Eucharist. He
contended for a change in the elements without any
destruction of their substance, and admitted the presence
of the Lord In a supernatural manner to every believing
soul in the administration of the ordinance ; but some
who followed him denied the presence in any sense whatever. In his final recantation Berengar acknowledged a
1 A Testimonie of Antiquity shewing the ancient faith in the
Church of England, etc., published under the auspices of Arch_
bishop Parker.

A.D. 730-1060.]

Rabanus Maurus.

199

substantial change wrought in the sacrament; the expressions forced upon the persecuted man indicating the
Church doctrine at the time, and clearly admitting a
change in the substance of the elements. 1
Amongst the theological names connected with the
predestinarian and eucharistic disputes of the ninth
century, one already mentioned requires notice on another account.
RABANUS MAURUS, Abbot of Fulda (A.D. 822), Archbishop of Mayence (847), was a most industrious author,
and a man of great religious influence. He took a part
in the predestinarian controversy, opposing Gottschalk
with all his might; and in the eucharistic controversy he
opposed Radbert; but the work by Rabanus Maurus which
we wish to notice now for a moment is his De Universo,
in' twenty-two books, of which about five only relate to
ecclesiastical and theological subjects. As to theology,
which alone concerns us, he treats of the Trinity, and that
chiefly in reference to the different names of the Father
and the Son, also explaining what is revealed in reference
to the Holy Ghost, and insisting upon the Western doctrine of His procession from the Father and the Son.
Afterwards he takes up the names assigned to angels,
and the signification of the names borne by patriarchs
and prophets. 2 In the course of his etymological remarks he shows himself a debtor to Isidore and Bede, and
indicates a taste for inquiry into the meaning of words,
not without a special value at that period, when realism
played so important a part in the realms of thought, preparing for controversies to be noticed hereafter. Rabanus
1 See passages quoted in Gieseler, vol.
Berengarii, p. 761; Gieseler, vol. II. p. rro.
2 Dupin, Ninth Century, p. r6o.

II.

p. 103.

Acta

Western Divines.

200

[PART III.

Maurus was a pupil of Alcuin ; so also was Fredegis of
St. Martin of Tours, who seems to have anticipated to
some extent the conflict between realism and nominalism
at a later period. He debated the question whether
nothingness be a reality or not, determining that question
in the affirmative, because any name denotes a certain
thing, and the Holy Scripture speaks of a creation from
nothing. He endeavoured to prove that darkness is a real
substance, and cites the words in Genesis-that darkness
rested on the face of the waters ; that God separated the
light from the darkness ; and that in Egypt there was a
darkness that might be felt. This and much more looks
like mere verbal trifling, such as prevailed abundantly in
the days of Fredegis; but when we brush away the dust
of verbiage resting on his writings, it seems that he, like
Rabanus Maurus, was making preparation for the comiÂ°ng
combat between Realists and Nominalists. More was suspected to underlie such a contention than some cautious
scholars liked to anticipate;Âˇ and we read of a learned
clerk who asked the monks of Reichenau, if they were
for Aristotle, who did not believe in universals as Plato
did. .Here the obscure correspondent was treading on
the edge of a volcano, which in the twelfth and following
centuries burst into flames ; and, as if aware of it, he
proceeded to say of these Greek masters of philosophy,
" They were both of such authority that it was difficult
to prefer one to the other." 1
In the ninth century, besides the theologians already
named, there lived one outside their sphere who has
made a mark on history deeper than any of them.
CLAUDE, Bishop of Tudn, died A.D. 839. A Spaniard
by birth, he possessed much of the Spanish character.
1

Matter's Histoire,

II.

278-283.

Claude of Turin.

A.D. 730-1060.]

201

Some passages of his writings anticipate the doctrines of
the Reformation. He taught the supreme authority of
Scripture, insisting that human writings were to be read,
as Augustine says," not with a necessity of believing, but
with liberty of judging; " that the communion in the
sacrament is the communion of faith ; that it is folly and
sacrilege to worship images ; that there is no mediator
between God and man but the man Christ Jesus ; that
no Church should be dedicated to saints or angels ; and
that relics ought not to be venerated and honoured in the
way they were. 1
"On coming to Turin," he says," I found all the Church
contrary to the Word of truth, full of images and abomination. And because I began to destroy what the people
worshipped, they opened their mouths against me so
furiously, that unless God had assisted me I had been
overwhelmed. We do not think, said they, the image we
worship is Divine; we only honour-it for the sake of Him
whom it represents. To whom I replied, that if after
leaving the worship of idols they had taken to the worship of the images of saints, they had but changed names.
If men be adored at all, it is better to do it when they
are living than when they are dead ; when they bear the
image of God, not when, like stocks and stones, they have
neither sense nor reason. If the cross is to be worshipped
because Christ was suspended on it, virgins should be
worshipped because His mother was a virgin ; mangers
should be adored because He was laid in a manger; and
swaddling bands should be reverenced because, when He
was born, He was wrapped in swaddling bands. Âˇ Hear,
ye simple among the people; and ye fools, when will ye
be wise ? who make pilgrimages to Rome, and seek the
1

Allix's Albigenses, p. 93.

Western Divines.

202

[PART lH,

intercession of the apostle. Every one is bound to
believe God when He speaks, how much more when He
speaks with an oath, saying,' If Noah, Daniel, and Job
were in the midst of it,' if there were as much sanctity, as
much justice, as much merit in these saints of yours as
in them, 'they should liberate neither son nor daughter.' "
Claude says, too, that no one may trust to the merits and
intercessions of saints.
Âˇ
Claude's idea of apostolic succession is thus briefly
expressed. " Certainly he is not to be called apostolic
who sits in the apostle's chair, but he who fulfils the
apostle's office. Of them who hold the place but do not
discharge the office, the Lord has said, 'The Scribes and
Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.'"
It may be added that contemporary with Claude was
AG0BARD, Archbishop of Lyons (A.D. 813- 841), who
denounced the corruptions of his day, and asserted that
to worship. images is folly, and that relics ought not to
receive religious honours.
In the tenth and eleventh centuries the stream of
Augustinian theology, it would seem, may be traced in
the writings of some obscure authors-. " Let no man,''
says Ausbert, cited by Milner,1 "attribute to the teacher
that he understands from his mouth ; for unless there
be an internal teacher the external one labours in vain.
The Jews heard Christ preach in one manner, the apostles
in another; those to j udgment, these to salvation ; for the
Spirit taught these in the heart what those heard outwardly by the ear. Unless the Lord shine into the heart
of the hearer, the teacher labours in darkness." Other
passages with" an evangelical ring" in them may be culled
from authors of that age, though we must not lose sight
1

Church Hist., vol. m. p. 299.

A.D.

730-1000.)

Arnulph.

203

of the mass of Church theology in which they are imbedded ; and if we may for a moment cross the line
between West and East, it is pleasant to find the study
of the Bible enforced on the laity by Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria (died A.D. I I I 2 ). " Say not that it
belongs only to persons professedly religious to read the
Scriptures. It is the duty of every Christian, particularly
of those who are in the midst of secular employments ;
they need the greatest help, as they live in a tempest. It
is for thine own interest that thy children be well versed
in Scripture; thence they will learn to reverence their
parents." 1
In the tenth century too, as in the ninth, we hear
mutterings of complaints and even bursts of indignation
against Rome. Arnulph, Archbishop of Orleans, who
presided over a council at Rheims A.D. 991, echoed what
had before fallen from the lips of Claude and Agobard.
" Once we had our illustrious Leos, our Gregorys the
Great. The whole Church, it is true, was willing to submit to the control of such men; but now shall it be decreed
that to the popes of our time, monsters of iniquity, ignorant of Divine and human learning, unnumbered servants
of God scattered through the world, distinguished by
knowledge and piety, shall be compelled to submit?
What do you think of him who, seated on his lofty
throne, glitters in gold and purple ? If destitute of love,
ancl inflated only with knowledge, he is Antichrist sitting
in the temple of God, and showing himself that he is
God." 2
1
Church Hist., vol. III. p. 299. Milner in his Ch. Hist. cites
other authors whom he recognizes as of an evangelical stamp ; but
his chronological arrangement is confused.
2 Letters in Act. Syn. Rhem., c. 28. Gieseler, vol. 11. p. 81.

204

Western Divines.

[PART II1.

There cannot be much doubt that the influence of
Claude upon his flock, perpetuated for years amongst their
posterity, prepared for that revival and reformation of
religion which appeared in the twelfth century. It is probable that his influence reached the Vaudois Christians of
later times. The resemblance between their sentiments
and those of Claude, and the contiguity of the valleys to
the city of Turin, seem to point to some sort of connection
between them, perhaps very remote. It is true that in the
ecclesiastical writers of the tenth and eleventh centuries
there is no notice taken of these people; but traditions of
their antiquity would indicate their early existence. The
silence of historians respecting them till the twelfth century, when all the circumstances of the case are takenÂˇ
into consideration, is by no means sufficient evidence
to the contrary. The retired situation of the Alpine
valleys, the scenery which skirted them, so calculated to
inspire freedom of thought, the simple nature of the
episcopacy which obtained in the country, so free from
hierarchical magnificence and pomp, and the tolerant
government of the House of Savoy, in whose dominions
the valleys were situated, contributed to render them a fit
retreat for a faithful remnant, free from reigning corruptions, and averse to the power of Rome. 1
We may here add, besides the Vaudois, there were
in North Italy other dissentients from Rome. About the
eleventh century there poured in an influx of foreigners
who had for centuries maintained religious opinions
opposed to the reigning Church. We have met with the
~aulicians, who originated in the East in the seventh
1

The Noble Lesson has often been cited in proof of the antiquity of the Vaudois Church; but a MS. of that work recently
brought to light s_hows it to belong to the fifteenth century.

A.D. 730--1000.]

Albigenses.

205

century, and seen how their creed held in solution a good
deal of Manich~ism. For a long while they had been
meek, patient, and submissive ; then, goaded on by persecution, they fled to arms, and on the field of battle
defended their rights. Patilician exiles settled in Bulgaria, and thence, through commerce on the Danube,
they spread south and west, and made their appearance
not only in Lombardy and Italy, but also in Switzerland
and France. They diffused their tenets wherever they
went, sowing seeds of dissent from Rome, or watering
-such seeds already sown. The corruptions of the Church
must have predisposed many for the reception of reformatory doctrines, and have greatly contributed to their
ultimate success. These people, and probably others
whose origin might be independent of them, put who
before the end of the eleventh century emerged from
obscurity and attracted the notice of ecclesiastical powers,
were known by a variety of names-applied in scorn ;
such as Cathari, Puritans, and Patarini, i. e. low-bred
people. Those who lived in the neighbourhood of Albi, in
the south of France, received the name of Albigenses. 1 To
distinguish accurately between different shades of opinion
which prevailed among these sects is now hopeless,for they
have left no monuments of their own, and their enemies in

â&#x20AC;˘

1

The opinions of the Albigenses, in comparison with those of the
Waldenses, present a thorny question into which I cannot enter. It has
been discussed by Gieseler, Neander, Schmidt, and Maitland. My
Âˇ own opinion is that the record of the Inquisition of Toulouse, 13071323, decides the question as to the orthodoxy of the Waldenses
and the heterodoxy of the Albigenses. The record is preserved in
the BritishMuseum. Jn it 92 persons are set down as. Valdenses,
and 495 as Heretics. The opinions attributed to the Heretics are
different from those described or professed by the Valdenses. See
Maitland'_s Eight Essays, p. 182.

206

Western Divines.

[PART III.

many instances, there can be no doubt, have greatly misrepresented them. But this much appears certain, that
the so-called Cathari and the so-called Albigenses were
different from the W aldenses. Manichceism, or Dualism
in some form appears to have been held by the former,
and they regarded the Son of God as the highest angel,
and the Holy Ghost as inferior to the Father. The God
of the Old Testament was rejected, the incarnation was
denied, and the history of the Redeemer was explained
on a docetic principle ; yet the New Testament is said to
have been an object of veneration to these people,-and
they are further described as believers in absolute predestination, and as disbelievers both in the efficacy of
water baptism, and in the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Rejecting the rites 1Jf the Roman Catholic Church, they
had ceremonies of their own. 1
The tenth century was a period of great religious excitement, owing to an idea that the end of the world was
at hand. It had been a tradition with Biblical commentators that the millennium spoken of in the twentieth
chapter of the Revelation was a spiritual dispensation, to
expire with the tenth century of the Christian era. As that
term approached, the minds of people turned towards it
with hope or terror,according to their spiritual experiences
and character. The devout hailed what lay beyond with
joy, the worldly were filled with dismay and horror.
Speculations about Antichrist were mixed up with the
prospect of final doom. The _origin of Antichrist, the
meaning of his name, and the time of his appearance
Âˇ attracted attention. It was thought by some that
Babylonia would be his birthplace, and Chorazin or
1 Mosheim, Eccl. Hz'st., pp. 385, 425, 478; Robertson, Hzst.,
vol. v. p. 3u, etc.

A.D. 730-106o.]

Abbot Abbo.

207

Bethsaida the scene of his education. An opinion was
entertained that he would spring from a virgin, or be
the offspring of a bishop and a nun.
But there were
persons who believed that one of the popes would turn
out to be Antichrist ; and into this channel of prophetic
interpretation the anti-papal current of sentiment at
that time appeared to flow. It is curious to find, however, that the clergy opposed calculations as to the en_d
of the world, and laboured to persuade the laity that
there was no reason to expect its immediate occurrence.
It was contended that the very expectation itself was a
primd facie argument against its being fulfilled, for as
building and worldly business were in some places suspended through the prevalent alarm, such a season
could not be what the Lord had predicted when He said,
"As it was in the days of Lot ; they did eat, they
drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded ;
but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained
fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is
revealed." 1 The Abbot Abbo opposed the common idea.
" When I was a youth," he relates, " I heard a sermon
preached before the people of Paris about the end of the
world. In that sermon it was said, that as soon as the
thousandth year had ended Antichrist would come, and
soon afterwards the universal judgment. To the best of
my power I opposed this preaching from the Gospels,
the Apocalypse, and the Book of Daniel." 2
The taking of Jerusalem by the Saracens was explained, onÂˇ the other hand, as a confirmation of the
1

Luke xvii. 28-30.
Baronii' Annales, anno 1001. The life of Abbo has been
published by Bouquet in his Historians, tome x.
2

208

Western Divines.

[PART III.

coming end. "In the year of our Lord 1009, through
God's permission, the land of J udcea was invaded by the
unclean Turks. Jerusalem was taken, and the glorious
sepulchre of Christ our Lord fell into their hands: This
happened in the eleventh year of Robert, King of the
Franks, when Basil and Constantine were Kings of the
Greeks, and Henry Emperor of the Romans. At that
time many of the Jews barbarized through fear. In the
year following, when those events were reported throughout the world, fear and grief filled the hearts of most
people, since they ·imagined that the end of the world
had arrived ; and the better disposed, turning the occasion
to profit, seriously addressed themselves to the reformation
of their lives." 1
As to the interpretation of prophecy, it seems to
have been in a. very unsettled and discordant state, for
we find Herbert de Losinga, Bishop of Norwich, saying,
about the end of the eleventh century, " No place is inaccessible to Satan. Satan has been loosed for a thousand
years-a furnace of trial for us, if so be we be not burnt
up in it as straw, but purified as gold." 2 And here I
shall be forgiven for adding from the same writer a
passage in one of his familiar letters, in which, oddly
enough, referring to an animal he had borrowed of a
brother bishop, he says, " I have kept your palfrey; but
the most righteous Judge will restore him to thee one
day in a flowery plain at that last great Jubilee, when
unto all men all that has been theirs shall be ·r~stored."
"Was he a millennarian," asks his editor, "and did he
1 Narrative of W. Godell, Bouquet's Historians, x. 262.
See
further illustrations in Maitland's Apostolic School of Prophetic
Intt!rpretation, pp. 300--307.
• Life and Letters of Herbert de Losinga, I. 205.

A.D. 730-1000.]

Henry and Peter.

209

hold the personal reign of Christ on a regenerated
earth?"
Passing from this scanty notic;e of prophetical interpretations and ideas, and returning to a chronological
arrangement, we may mention two more names of antip1pal reformers, in addition to those already cited.
HENRY THE HERMIT signalized himself in the twelfth
century as a popular preacher, who combated much of
the popular religion of his day, in the course of his missionary tours in Provence and Lausanne. His name has
been blackened by grave charges, but perhaps his chief
offence was that he unsettled public opinion on theological points.
PETER DE BRUIS was a man of the same class, and
·violently condemned masses, altars, prayers for the
dead, and the veneration of crucifixes.
It would
appear that he opposed the baptism of infants, in this
respect resembling other reformers in those days. 1 · He
met with a martyr's fate, and died in the flames ; and it
is important to find Bernard bearing testimony to the
effects of this person's endeavours in the numbers which
he drew off from the communion of the dominant Church.
"There are a great many churches without people, a great
many people without priests, a great many priests despised
by the people, and a great many Christians without Jesus
Christ. The churches are become like so many synagogues, t~e sanctuary is divested of its sanctity, the sacraments are looked upon as profane things, the festivals lose
their solemnity, men aie in their sins without absolution,
and without receiving the communion. Baptism is denied·
to infants, they deride prayers and sacrifices for the dead,
and the invocation of saints, the .. excommunication of
1_ Dupin, XII.
p

p. 87.

2IO

Western Divines.

[PART Ill,

bishops, the pilgrimages of devotion, and the consecration
of the holy chrism and the holy oils; and, in a word, a
general contempt is cast on the ceremonies and customs
of the Church." 1
It has been common to confound together all the
religionists of the Middle Ages who stood aloof from the
Church of Rome ; but there is good reason to believe that
they greatly differed from one another ; some adopted
very erroneous opinions; in some political aspirations were
predominant; but no reasonable doubt can be entertained
respecting the orthodoxy and piety of PETER WALDO,
who lived in the latter half of the twelfth century. He
procured a vernacular version of the Scriptures-imperfect, no doubt--at the hands of two ecclesiastics, it is said,
and then circulated it as widely as possible. A language
called the Romance was spoken by Waldo's neighbours
and countrymen, different from the language spoken in
the provinces of Gaul, when Jerome prepared the V ulgate
translation. Waldo's Romaunt translation included the
four Gospels and other parts of the sacred volume ; and
by their circulation, rather than by attempts at ecclesiastical reform, he sought to promote a revival of religion.
1

Dupin,

XII.

p. 87.

PART IV.
FROM THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF
SCHOLASTICISM TO THE REFORMATION.
A.D. 1o6o-1518.

213

CHAPTER I.
SCHOLASTIC DIVINITY.

W

106o-1224.

are apt to confound the different centuries of the
mediao:val period. Dark they were compared with
the preceding and following ages, but not so dark as to be
without an " auspicious gleam," like a summer midnight
in northern latitudes. Whatever be the exact date fixed
upon for the rise of scholasticism, it flourished in a very
decided form before the end of the eleventh century. It
is curious to notice how the schoolmen, then and afterwards, managed to perform their evolutions, how without
breaking bounds they contrived to take so much vigorous exercise. Resistance to a growing spirit of inquiry
proved useless. " Efforts put forth were desultory and
irregular. They were the results of individual enterprise
and courage; like the voyages of mariners pushing out to
sea, not knowing where the tide and winds might drive
' them. Now a principle was established according to
which human reason might freely expatiate. The liberty
of commenting and discussing without limit might be
indulged, provided the intellect confined itself within the
range of established authorities." 1 Any question might
be discussed which did not infringe upon the principle
that tradition was in some sort a form of Divine revelation,
that Fathers and doctors were authorized expounders of
Christ and the apostles.
E

1

Hampden's Bampton Leet., p. 46.

214

Sc!tolastic Divinity.

[PART IV,

No doubt a number of idle and absurd questions were
discussed; but scholastic studies must not be ranked
altogether under such a category.
Most conspicuous amongst the questions canvassed in
the schools is that which relates to general and individual
existences. The philosophies of Plato and Aristotle
have been distinguished as a science of realitie_s and a
science of names, and the distinction is correct to a
certain extent; but Plato's realities were not all so real as
he and his disciples supposed ; and Aristotle's science of
names was deeper than grammar or logic could fathom.
The two philosophers produced a powerful effect on the
Christian Church. The ideas of Plato laid hold of the
mind of the Fathers; the logical formulas of Aristotle at
a later date moulded the shape of theological systems ;
and the former continued to influence the speculations of
philosophers and divines long after the latter had become
a predominant power in the expression, the conflict, and
the arrangement of opinions. Eventually the influence
of Aristotle led to conceptions of general and individual
existences different from the doctrines of Plato. Questions
about them had early occupied the attention of metaphysical thinkers. Porphyry, in his introduction to
Aristotle's Categories, touched but left unsolved the inquiry, "Whether genera and species exist in nature, or
are only conceptions of the human mind ; and, on the
supposition that they exist in nature, whether they are
inherent in the objects of sense or disjoined from them." 1
This subject, passed over lightly by Alexandrian philosophers, irresistibly fixed itself on the minds of later
metaphysicians, especially those of the theological order,
1 Dugald Stewart, Philosophy of the Human Mind, vol. r. p .
. 168; Ueberweg's Hist. of Philosophy, vol. r. p. 365.

A.D.

1o60-1518.]

Realists.

215

and came to play a conspicuous part in the mediceval
history of the human mind. Augustine, as we have seen,
proceeded upon the principle that human nature, as distinguished from human individuality, has a real existence.
Individuals were regarded by him as substances in the
fullest sense; but species and genera,i. e. distinct characteristics predicable of races, or of the entire family of man,in other words, the sum total of peculiarities distinguishing
one class of beings fromanother,-he also treated as having
actual existence, though in a secondary sense. This idea of
a real existence of species and genera obtained amongst
metaphysical theologians down to the eleventh century;
other than individual entities occupied men's thoughts
as realities, deeper and more important, because more
enduring than that which is material or personally intellectual. The existence of a common nature as distinguishable from the members of the human family, the
existence of truth and goodness as distinguishable from
the thoughts and virtues of particular persons, this was
firmly believed; and the realism, or idealism, thus embraced had ramifications spreading over wide fields of
reflection. To the universal ideas of being and unity
these thinkers attributed reality. "Quite ignorant of the
Platonic method, quite ignorant of the battles Plato had
to fight with Parmenides and his school, in order that
the name or notion of being might not be substituted for
being itself, they taught it as a part of the science of
logic-the science of names and notions-that universals
have a life and a reality of their own." 1
We now proceed to notice the writings of a most
distinguished realist who made some valuable contributions to metaphysical theology, reserving what we have
1

Maurice's Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy.

216

Scholastic DiÂˇvinity.

[PART IV.

to say relative to the controversy between realists and
nominalists until we reach the author who is generally
regarded as the founder of this later school.
ANSELM (A.D. 1033-1109) is better known to English
readers as a champion of the Church against William
Rufus than as a great metaphysician and theologian;
but it is in the latter capacities that he is most illustrious.
He is counted by some as the founder of scholasticism,
being the mo'st distinguished realistic philosopher of the
eleventh century; and undoubtedly one great object of
his life was to harmonize philosophy with religion by
subjecting the former to the authority of the latter. It
was not philosophy which induced this extraordinary
man to study religion ; it was religion which led him to
devote the powers of his richly-gifted mind to philosophy.
Like Augustine, he was taught by experience. Beautiful
is the story of his spiritual life, how in the solitude of the
cloister at Bee, in Normandy, he thought and prayed,
and longed after God; and the seeds sown in his heart at
Aosta, in Italy, by his mother germinated and bore holy
fruit. With childlike imagination, whilst playing at the
foot of the Piedmontese Alps, he had looked on the snowpeaks at sunrise and sunset as God's white throne, and
had dreamt that he ascended celestial heights, to be fed
with angels' food- by his Divine Father's hand ; and, when
the early clothing of such thoughts fell off, he contemplated and adored with manly mind and heart the Author
of his being and the Redeemer of his soul.
The contributions which Anselm made to theological science were numerous and important. He found
himself amidst an age of intellectual activity, when
the powers of human reason were being vigorously developed, and when the demands of human reason were

A.D. 1o60-1518.]

Anselm.

217

deemed most pressing, in connection with religious beliefs. He sought the aid of reason in support of religion.
He felt sure that as the human mind and the gospel of
Jesus Christ were both Divine gifts, they could not be
at variance, but must be capable of reconciliation, and
contain in them a profound harmony manifest to an
inquirer who brought them into fair comparison with
each other.
I. He began by studying the relations between faith
and reason; and he earnestly insisted upon the necessity
of faith. In philosophy he considered that all true
conclusions flowed from the constitution of the human
intellect, that fundamental beliefs, ineradicable convictions, were lying at the basis of all science ; and as to
religion, he believed that faith constituted its basis-religious faith, in his apprehension, being not a mere intellectual exercise, but something closely connected with
the human will, and with the moral state of man ;
hence he contended that no condition of thought and
.feeling could be regarded as Christian faith which did
not produce fruits of holiness. A vital practical faith
he connected with human reason as a prerequisite for its
right exercise in reference to religious truth. Such faith,
therefore, he taught, must come before there can be
any proper understanding of Divine things. His famous
dictum was, vVe must believe that we may understand, not
understand that we may believe. The profoundest
truths must first be accepted by faith, in order that they
may be afterwards examined and discussed by reason.
Such examination and discussion, he says, ought to
follow; for it betrays negligence to believe and then not
to aim at understanding what is believed. Yet, as a
genuine Roman Catholic, he thought that reason must

218

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV,

not inquire whether that which Scripture and the Church
have taught be true. No ; such truth in his view ought
to be submissively admitted ; and reason could only be
allowed to investigate the grounds on which truth ultimately is found to rest. He taught that reason could not
make a Christian man more or less sure, it could only
illuminate that of which he was previously convinced.
Religious faith rests entirely on authority-the authority
of the Bible, the authority of the Church. Doubts and
objections are foreclosed; and whilst reason may exercise itself within prescribed limits of ecclesiastical teaching, it must not take one step beyond. So Anselm
brought all his philosophy into subjection to faith, and
faith he identified with submission to the Church. 1
2. He was absorbed in reflections on the existence of
God ; and he aimed at constructing a scheme of natural
theology which should meet the demands of reason and
harmonize with the philosophy of his age. Anselm's
argument on this subject is very subtle, and it is difficult
to make it intelligible. It may be represented as twofold.
First, in accordance with his realistic philosophy, he believed that ideas in the mind have a Divine foundation ;
and he claimed as a postulate that the mind can create
nothing, but only perceive what is divinely revealed in
some way ; and that which is so perceived must be true.
There is in man an original and indestructible idea of
God. It is natural, and must come from God Himself;
with such an origin, therefore, it must be true. Secondly,
he adduced an ontological proof in the following form :
God is the mbst perfect of beings, than whom nothing
greater can be conceived. Now that which has actual
1 Proslogium, c. 1. ; Cur Deus Homo ? lib.
weg, Hist., vol. r. p. 380.

I,

c.

I.

See U eber-

A.D. 1060-1518.]

Anselm.

219

existence is superior to that which is barely conceivable;
therefore, from the idea of such a Being must follow the
conviction of His actual existence. Because, otherwise,
He would not be the most perfectÂˇof beings, than whom
nothing greater can be conceived, for it would remain
possible to conceive something greater still, namely, this
very Being as actually existent. These arguments, in
their scholastic form, will have little weight with modern
thinkers; but in revised and modified ways they have been
used down to the present day. We shall meet with them
in a future stage of our historical review, and at present
I pass them over with the remark, that as minds are so
variously constituted, and as one kind of evidence commends itself to one class, and a different kind to another,
d priori or abstract reasoning may bear with great force
on some understandings, whilst it fails to convince
others. The necessary intuitions of the intellect, when
they are ascertained, present facts obviously bearing on
Âˇthis fundamental controversy, and must be taken into
account; nor can it be overlooked that a posteriori
inductions, bearing upon the signs of intelligence and
will, as causes of natural phenomena, need to be supplemented by abstract considerations soi;newhat of the same
character as those of Anselm. Anselm believed that
God is subject to no law but what is in Himself. His
will is law ; yet Divine freedom has reference only to what
is good. The doctrine that a thing is right because God
wills it, must not be understood to mean, that if God were
to will what is essentially wrong, His will would turn
injustice into righteousness. God cannot lie; thus the
rightness of what He wills cannot be extended to what
would be unbecoming to His holy nature.1 Arbitrary
1

Cur Deus Homo .t lib.

L

c. 12.

220

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

forgiveness he places amongst acts unbecoming the Ruler
of the universe. 1
3. He systematically handles, in a treatise devoted to
the purpose, the subject of original sin. In it he asserts
the depravity of human nature, and shows that moral evil
has its seat in the will; and he also maintains that penalties
are inflicted only when disobedience has been voluntary.
He inquires why and in what way sin descends to
infants. It is not through a necessity founded in creation, but it results from the propagation of an apostate
nature, in consequence of the fall of our first parents.
Like Augustine, Anselm believed that the whole race
was seminally in Adam, and that all his posterity sinned
in and with him. The common nature which existed in
him becomes distributed among his individual descendants. Consequently, sin in the nature of Adam is not
identical with sin in the conduct of persons who form his
posterity. The former is original sin, the latter is actual
sin. But though he strenuously taught the transmissionÂˇ
of moral evil from generation to generation, he declared
that there is a sense in which no one can bear his
parent's sin, and in his conclusions on this subject, he
contended against those who think that infants ought
not to suffer on account of Adam's disobedience. 2
4. No one could more zealously extol the riches of
God's love than did Anselm. Every creature, he 'says,
exists by virtue of it. It is diffused through all the
operations of creation and providence in manifold modes
1 Anselm works out his argument for the existence of God in
the Proslogium. See outline of it in Neander, vol. VIII. p. 200;
Remusat, Saint Anselm de Cant., p. 463 et seq.
2 See De Conceptu virginali, et originali peccato, and De libero
arbitrio.

A,D.

106o-1518.]

Anselm.

221

and forms. Whatever we have we must ascribe to
it, not to our own merits ; and no creature can render
to the Almighty and all gracious One anything which
His free goodness has not first bestowed. The law can
never justify. We are saved by grace; and where sin
abounded, there grace did much more abound. Man is
unable to begin, or to preserve, or to perfect anything
which is good without God. All good works are God's
gifts. Obedience is through His grace. A man who falls
into sin cannot be restored but by Divine power. Conversion is wrought by the Holy Spirit, and it is not in
a sinful being to convert himself. This mighty change is
the most wonderful of all operations ; indeed, the renewal
of a soul is a more surprising miracle than the resurrection
of a body. 1
Such sentences are freely scattered over
Anselm's works, and they indicate his habitual recognition of the necessity, the efficaciousness, and the free
bestowment of the gifts of redeeming love. Tenaciously
he held the theory of a priesthood in the Church, and the
necessary administration of sacraments, and the doctrine
of baptismal regeneration ; but he held that they were
only channels through which Divine grace flows into
the souls of sinful men.
5. Predestination, our author says, is scarcely an accurate expression in reference to the Eternal, as with Him
all is present ; there is no past, no future. Knowledge,
determination, calling, justification, glorification are acts
of the Divine mind and will, beyond the conditions of
time and succession. They are from eternity. Prescience
and predestination are harmonious ; indeed the one is
1 These sentiments occur in different works. See pp. 128,215,
171,263,236, 130, 131, 54, 263, and 121 (large numerals) of Anselmi
Opera, edit. Migne.

222

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

involved in the other. Prescience is the result of predestination. Foreknowledge is not derived from things
which are to exist, but things which exist are derived
from foreknowledge ; otherwise things would exist independently of God, and would be a source of knowledge
to His infinite mind. In a certain sense God may be
said to predestinate evil, for He permits it, He does not
hinder it - hence it happens. The predestination of
good is very different. The existence of what is real and
substantial must be from God; and as all which is good
must be real and substantial, it proceeds from God. Evil
is a negation, the absence of good, and therefore is not
from God. All actions may be said to have a Divine
cause, inasmuch as the power to act is a Divine gift. The
substance of the act is from Him; the quality or privation of good in the performance of the act is not and
cannot be from Him. The power to act is an instrument
which may be used or misused for different purposes. For
its misuse the Creator of the instrument is not responsible.
Hence Anselm says predestination is consistent with
human freedom, a position which, though it be true and
consistent with fact, he fails, with all his metaphysical
acuteness, to place in a clear and distinct light. Indeed, much of his argumentation is founded on verbal
subtleties and equivocations, which can satisfy very few
persons in the way they seem to have satisfied him. At
any rate, he believed in the Divine predestination of
events ; and his endeavour was to find a philosophical
method of reconciling with this the free action and
responsibility of human beings. He grappled with thÂˇe
most ancient and the most profound of puzzles, and
failed only where others have done so. 1
1

De Concord. Pras. Dei, etc., qurest.

1., 11., 111., IV.,

v., VI., VII.

A.D. I 000--- I 5I 8.]

Anselm.

223

6. As to the atonement, Anselm went below the
question, What has redemption done for us ? He asked,
Has it not a bearing on the Divine government, and on
the interests of the universe, asÂˇ well as on our own
personal welfare ? He prosecuted a line of thought
which had been opened at a much earlier period, and
had been pursued to .some extent by Athanasius and
Augustine. A profound discussion of the subject is
contained in his dialogue entitled, Cur Deus Homo ?
Anselm could not admit the idea of a ransom having in
any way been paid to the evil one. A ransom is due
only to God. Sin is the denial of the Divine due; it is
injustice, it is the withholding of rights belonging to the
Lord of the universe. Though such a state of things be
permitted, still it is perfectly intolerable. That God
should be robbed, and not repaid, is what cannot be endured. God cannot suffer His honour to be permanently
violated. If it be so, then man cannot be saved without
something being done to vindicate and support Divine
claims. If sin be forgiven, some satisfaction must be
made for it. But the greatness of sin is overwhelming,
man himself cannot restore to the Almighty what he has
taken away by his offences. What he cannot do must
be done by another, if he be saved at all. And only One
can make the needful satisfaction-the God-man. 1 This
1

Ritschl thus expounds Anselm in the Hist. of Christian Doc-

trine, etc., p. 27 :
" If the value of the satisfaction is to exceed in value the whole
universe, that is to say, the whole of that which is not God, then the
satisfaction must be given by one who himself is greater than the
universe. But only God Himself is greater than all which is not God;
therefore God alone can give the satisfaction. But inasmuch as,
properly speaking, man ought to give it, it can on that account only
be achieved by God as man, or by Him who is at once perfect God

224

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART

rv.Âˇ

idea Anselm works out at length. He determines on a
priori grounds what is essential to a sufficient satisfaction;
concluding that he who makes it must be perfect God
and perfect man ; must be of the seed of Adam, and
must assume humanity from a virgin, must have two
natures in one person, must be innocent and free. in
himself from the penalty of death, must have life in
his own hands, and die ei- sztd potestate, must partake
of human infirmities, and when he dies must by his
death prevail over the number and magnitude of our
offences. 1
His work i~ a piece of logical argumentation throughout. It could not, indeed, have entered into the mind
of any one ignorant of the gospel. This Anselm implicitly acknowledges in his fundamental principle," First
believe, then understand." Faith was at the bottom of
his dialectics. He consciously employed himself in
analyzing a truth taught by inspiration. Yet though
his process of thought was actually excogitated from a
ground of faith, he did not formally recognize it in his
reasonings. He did not proceed from fact to theory,
but rather from theory to fact. He did not say, There
is in Scripture the doctrine of satisfaction for sin through
the atonement of Christ, therefore there must be a
necessity for such satisfaction. But, on independent
grounds, he contended there must be a satisfaction, in
the nature of things it is indispensable ; therefore such
a satisfaction has been provided.
This kind of discussion has often been repeated since
and perfect man, without mingling or changing of the two natures
in the peculiarity of the person. Now this is realized in the incarnate Word of God."
1 Cur Deus Homo? lib. II. cc. 6-14.

A.D.

Anselm.

ro60-r5r8.]

225

Anselm's time ; but whatever may be the value of it in
some respects, it is assuredly defective in this : it is
confined to the satisfaction of Divine righteousness without taking into account the moral bearing of redemption,
namely, slaying the enmity of the human heart. Anselm
dwelt on a much-neglected view, and that view needs to
be kept in mind ; but another view ought ever to be
coupled with it-that a vital union with the Redeemer,
dying to sin through faith in Him, and living to holiness
through the power of the same faith, is an essential part
of the process of salvation. It is curious that in one
part of his writings the author introduces an illustration
very pertinent to the purpose now indicated. Speaking
of a costly pearl falling amidst filth, he asks, Can it be
replaced in the owner's casket unwashed and defiled ?
He employs the figure inappositely, for the purpose of
showing the need of a satisfaction to Divine justice; it
appropriately applies to the moral renewal of the soul
redeemed by the mediation of Christ.
It should further be noticed that the main stress of
Anselm's argument goes to show the necessity of the
Incarnation for the redemption of man. Indeed, the
title of his great work indicates this-Cur Deus Homa '!
With an affluence of reasoning, Anselm insists upon this
aspect of Christian doctrine ; but he says comparatively
little respecting the death of Christ. He alludes to it
occasionally in hi~ treatise; but his thoughts respecting
the subject turn chiefly on the voluntariness of the death
of Christ, and the relation in which His death stood to
those who crucified Him. 1 He does not bring out explicitly what is generally understood by the sacrificial, the
propitiatory, the atoning effect of the death of Christ,
1

Lib. r. c. 9 ;
Q

II.

15, 17.

226

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

but discusses the subject under subtle forms of thought
and a scholastic style of expression unfamiliar to modern
theologians. In other parts of his writings, however, he
speaks of the Lord's death as the means___:.the necessary
yet voluntarily undertaken means-of our salvation; 1 and
in one of his Meditations touchingly recognizes as,
"placed before our very eyes, the price of redemption,
the death and blood of our Redeemer, as shed for the
remission of our sins." 2
But at the \'.ery time that Anselm was dwelling upon
subjects which-seemed sufficient to satisfy the cravings of
the human soul for acceptance with God and the enjoymentof spiritual blessings, the current theology was flowing
in other channels. Of this we Âˇhave a remarkable instance
in the life of his contemporary and friend HERBERT DE
L0SINGA,Bishop of Norwich 3 (A.D. 1095-1 I 19),who,when
Matilda, the Queen of Henry I.,-" Molde the Good," as
she used to be called,-approached her end, sent to her
for guidance and comfort a long prayer, addressed not
to that Saviour whose work Anselm had attempted to
illustrate, and in whom no doubt Herbert sincerely
believed, but to the Apostle John; thus indicating how
the intercession of saints was made to divert attention
from the intercession of the Saviour. "Before all other
saints," he teaches her to say, as she kneels before the
fourth evangelist," have I chosen thee alone ; yea, I have
chosen as my advocate him whom I hear to have been
beloved before all others. Obtain thou pardon for mine
negligences, and lighten thou, with thy visitation, the
burden of my soul, which hath well-nigh cast away hope.
2 Ibid; 213.
Opera, 222.
He was made Bishop of Thetford in 1091, bu.t in 1095 the see
was removed to Norwich.
1

3

. A.D. 1o60-1518.]

Herbert de Losinga .

227

And oh, in lightening these my cares, thou blessed JohnÂˇ,
see that thou have on thy side, as thy companions, all thy
friends, whom by my naughty life I have procured to be
mine enemies." 1 In this prayer St. John is extolled as
"a virgin, and a son of the virgin ; " and we find even
Anselm addressing the same person in these words :
" This is a special privilege of thy virginity, because, as a
virgin, thou wast elected by the Lord and more beloved
than the rest on this ground. Now, therefore," Anselm
adds, addressing a suppliant, "0 virgin, draw nearer to the
Saviour, and delay not to claim for thyself some portion
of this sweetness. But if thou art not able to walk in
this more excellent way, leave the breast of John where
he inebriates himself with the wine of gladness in contemplating the Lord's Divinity, and run thou to the breasts
of His humanity, and there suck the milk which may be
the nourishment of thy soul." 2 It is well observed with
reference to the prayer Herbert prep<!,red for the queen,
and it also applies in a measure to the quotation from
Anselm : "The piece has great historical interest, from
the witness which it bears to the deep corruption of
faith and worship which had eaten like a gangrene into
the Church of that period. Here, alas, is that overlaying
of Holy Scripture with legends and fables of man's invention, that indelicate and almost prurient recognition
of virginity as the queen of Christian virtues, taking.
precedence of them all in the favour of God and the
veneration of man, and that reposing of confidence in
the .intercession and patronage of saints, and particularly
of the blessed Virgin, which constitute the virus of the
1 Life and Letters of Herbert de Losinga, vol. I. p. 312.
whole prayer is given.
2 Meditationes, xv. Opera, vol. r. p. 231.
Q 2

The

228

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

Roman system, and which in this country, three centuries
later, ensured its downfall." 1
The towering form of Anselm has cast a shadow
over one of his contemporaries, pronounced of late "in
some respects an equal." 2 We refer to HILDEBERT,
Archbishop of Tours, who died about 1135. He wrote
a treatise on morals, Moralis Philosophia, and introduced
the maxims of Cicero, Seneca, Horace, and Juvenal. Up
to that time morals and theology had been inseparable ;
ethics were interwoven with the doctrines of Divinity ;
to know the will of God constituted the whole theory
of the subject. Hildebert made a bold attack on the
orthodox opinion. He concluded, in anticipation of
much later systems, that rq.orality is based on the
principle of expediency, that virtue is advantageous, that
honesty is useful ; at all events, this was what his writings
seem to have amounted to. It was a great innovation.
It broke away from ancient dogmas and convictions;
and if it attracted some, it shocked others. How to
reconcile conclusions of this order with established ideas
was no easy matter. The new philosophy prescribed a
strange medley of daring rationalism with a lingering
reverence for tradition. 3 It was a rising habit of thought.
Hence bold assertions had often to be followed by direct
retractations, where subtle sophistries were insufficient to
meet the difficulty.
If, with Tennemann, we reckon the commencement
of scholastic philosophy from the ninth century, then the
first period runs on to the eleventh century; and during
the whole of it realism was in the ascendant. Alcuiri
1 Life and Letters, edited by Goulburn and Symonds, vol.
2 Hardwick, Middle Ages, p. 276.
p. 302.
3 Matter, vol. III. p. 213.

I.

A.D.

ro6o-r5r8.]

Yohn Roscellin.

229

was a realist. John Scotus Erigena was a most decided
realist, reviving Neo-Platonism, and carrying out realistic
views in those speculations which have obtained for him
the name of pantheist. And Âˇ Anselm ever proceeds
along realistic lines. Indeed, down to the eleventh
century the realistic philosophy was all-powerful with
metaphysicians and divines. Then came the famous
JORN RoscELLIN, Canon of Compiegne ; and with
him, according to Tennemann, the second period in the
history of the scholastic philosophy commences..
He
entered, after an original manner, into the inquiry
propounded by Porphyry on the subject of universals.
Following, indeed going beyond, Aristotle, he concluded
that being and unity are only attributes, and not substances. Whether or not he was the first to strike out
this line of thought, he has won for himself the distinction
of being the founder of nominalism, as opposed to realism.
Genus and species, he taught, were not real essences, or
types, or moulds of things, but words or names invented
to express the thoughts of men in reference to the
classification of objects and instances.
We may sum up an account of realism and nominalism
thus. The doctrine of Plato, or at 1east the doctrine
ascribed to him by Aristotle,-that universals have an
independent existence apart from individual objects, and
that they exist before the latter,-has been denominated
extreme realism, and may be reduced to the formula
universalia ante rem. The Aristotelian opinion, that
universals, while possessing indeed a real existence, exist
only in individual objects, is the doctrine of moderate
realism, expressed . by the formula universalia in re.
Nominalism teaches that only individuals have real existence, and that genera and species are merely subjective

230

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV,

combinations of similar elements, united by the aid of
one and the same conception ; that through conception
similar objects are included under one and the same
word, which word we employ to express a corresponding totality of objects. Now of this nominalism
there are two varieties, according as stress is laid on
the nature of the conception or on the meaning of
the word. When stress falls on the conception, this
mode of looking at the subject is called conceptualism;
when the stress falls on the word, this way of regarding
it is called extreme nominalism.
The formula of
nominalism is universalia post rem. 1 Some critics on
this branch of history prefer dividing opinions into the
two classes of realistic and nominalistic, subdividing
each into two branches ; but the more common method
is to arrange the schoolmen under three denominations :
realists, nominalists, conceptualists.
"All these leading types of doctrine appear, either
in embryo or with a certain degree of development, in
the ninth and tenth centuries; but the more complete
expansion and the dialectical demonstration of them, as
well .as the sharpest contests of their several supporters
and also the development of the various possible modifications and combinations of them, belong to the period
next succeeding."
Concealed under a veil of grotesque mediceval
embroidery, we have in realism features of thought the
same as in the philosophy of Coleridge; and in nominalism we recognize a phase of speculation uncovered by
Locke and his disciples.
Roscellin (A.D. 1018) was more a metaphysician than
a theologian; but he comes out under the latter aspect in
1 Ueberweg's Hist. of Philosophy, vol. I. p. 366.

A.D. 1060-1518.J

William of Cltampeaux.

a letter which he wrote on the subject of the Trinity, to
which he applied his nominalistic scheme. If, as that
scheme asserts, only individuals have a real existence,
then the three persons of the, Godhead alone have a
substantial being. The unity of the Godhead is but a
name. The Trinity is the reality of the Divine nature.
" He asks why three eternal beings are not to be assumed
. to exist, seeing that the three persons of the Godhead are
eternal." He regarded the question as one of names;
taking person and substance as identical terms. He was
not inclined to heresy, but desired to hold fast to the
Christian faith and to defend it, believing that he was in
accord with the teaching of the Church, "since he everywhere used the word substantia in the sense of that which
has an independent existence, in which sense it may be
employed to translate the Greek word hypostasis, which
confessedly is used in the plural with reference to the three
persons. His language was indeed at variance with what
had become the established terminology of the Church ;
for in the latter the term substantia was always employed as the equivalent of the Greek word ov<rf.a (being,
substance), and was therefore only used in the singular, in
order to express the unity of the essence of the Divine
persons. This usage necessarily became all the more
invariable, since ovula has the same double signification
as substantia." 1
To anticipate a little, we may here observe that
WILLIAM OF CHAMPEAUX (who died A.D. I 120), a decided upholder of the reality of universals, entered upon
a course of argument opposed to that of Roscellin, and
applied it to theology. He contended that the distinction
between man and man-as between Peter and Paul, for
1

Ueberweg, vol.

I.

p. 375.

232

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

example, two individuals of the same race, both having
the universal attribute of humanity-does not apply to
the distinction between the persons of the Trinity. For,
he said, the humanity of one man is not, strictly speaking,
idtntz"cal with the humanity of another man ; it is only
similar; but this kind of distinction, he urged, could not
exist in the persons of the Godhead.1 These discussions,
both on the realistic and nominalistic sides, indicate the
-extremely subtle thought-some may think it more correct to say the extremely subtle use of words-which
characterized the intellectual activity of the period. No
doubt to people in general at the present day the whole
dispute is unprofitable, perhaps scarcely intelligible; but
the schoolmen, to whom these points of argument were
clear enough, considered that important theological issues
depended upon the dispute, complicated as it was with
their conceptions of man and God, of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit. And it is plain enough that
on the sides both of realists and nominalists such speculations as those just described were endeavours to
reconcile philosophy and religion, by making the former
tributary to the latter. Religion came first, philosophy
second, and the second was kept in subordination to the
first; but a, different phase of thought will appear on
turning to the controversy between Abelard and Bernard.
1

Ueberweg, vol.

I.

p. 377.

2 33

CHAPTER H.
SCHOLASTIC DIVINITY~continued.

T

HE position of PETER ABELARD (w79-1142) in
reference to the realistic controversy has been carefully determined by Cousin. 1 According to him, Abelard
was neither a nominalist nor a realist, but a conceptualist
equally removed from the two opposite extremes. He
insisted upon the significance of ideas, maintaining, on
the one hand, that they do not occupy some supersensuous
sphere; and, on the other, that they are not mere words,
for the human mind, which forms and uses them, cannot
be satisfied with nullities. The strength of this acute
thinker appears in conflict with both the metaphysical
schools of his day, but not through the maintenance of
any well-defined intermediate system.
Being a man of immense intellectual ambition, wi!h
little spiritual feeling in the earlier part of life, he was
scarcely qualified to reach the deepest principles of the
gospel.
I. Instead of holding, with Anselm, that the inquiry
into Divine questions requires a moral preparation, and
that the true starting-point is faith in Divine authority,
he treated the matter chiefly as an intellectual affair,
and, in opposition to Anselm, proceeded on the principle
that we must understand in order to believe. Anselm
1 Fragments Philosophiques, par V. Cousin, p. 226.
Dugald
Stewart was of opinion that Reid's doctrine of ideas coincided
nearly with that of the coilceptualists.

2 34

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

subordinated reason to faith; Abelard placed faith in subjection to Âˇreason. Here an immense difference appears,
indeed, a direct antagonism. Anselm was an apostle of
authority, Abelard an apostle of reason. As the former
followed the path beaten by earlier dogmatists, the latter
struck out a new one, in which we shall find he had
followers afterwards. But Abelard was inconsistent, as
all scholastic rationalists were, more or less. Though
in his famous book, Sic et non, he quoted numerous passages from the Fathers indicating a contrariety of opinion
among them, and so favouring a latitude of belief, he never
openly and avowedly questioned their authority. Whatever he might think, he remained silent on that point.
He distinguished between Scripture as necessarily true,1
and other writings as worthy of being consulted, without
deserving implicit acceptance; but this clue, which'might
have led him out of a labyrinth, he never used for such a
purpose. He departed from tradition without openly
opposing it. Reason was his mistress, and, after the
manner of a knight errant, he was willing to break a
lance with any one in honour of her.
2. He brought his logic to bear on his views of the
Divine nature. N ominalism said there is nothing which
truly exists but the individual; individuals alone are
realities. According to that doctrine, the three persons
in the Trinity, if realities, are individuals ; if not individ-_
uals, they are only names. ÂˇThe scholastic realist attacked
that representation, and sought to place the nominalist
on the horns of a dilemma-to terrify him with Tritheism
on the one side, and Sabellianism on the other. He
Âˇ insisted that to choose between them was inevitable ; that
1 Abelard wrote an exposition of St. Paul's Epistle to the
Romans, and habitually appealed to Scripture.

A.D. 1060--1518.]

Abelard.

2

35

there was no alternative but to accept heresy in one way
or another as the.results of nominalism. The scholastic
conceptualist, represented by Abelard, shrunk from regarding the three persons of the' Trinity as individual
realities. He maintained that God is only one individual;
and he resolved the Trinity into the omnipotence of the
Father, the wisdom of the Son, and the love of the Spirit;
thus constructing a purely philosophical theory onÂˇ the
subject. If the nominalist sacrificed the unity of God
to the reality of the three .persons, the conceptualist
sacrificed the three persons to the Divine unity. One
philosopher was Tritheistic, the other Sabellian. Abelard's notion was that the doctrine of the Trinity, as he
expounded it, is a conception of reason independent of
revelation, and as such apprehended by ancient philosophers.1
3. Abelard's philosophy further modified his Âˇviews
of sin. He did not believe in the actual existence of
human nature as distinguished from individual existence,
and therefore did not believe in original sin, after the
manner of Anselm or Augustine. He maintained sin to
be simply an attribute' of individual personality.
4. In relation to the work of grace, he thought that the
first degree of faith is determined by the force of rational
argument; but still he maintained that the seat of religion is in the heart, and that out of rational faith there
proceeds, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the confidence
of religious convictions respecting things unseen. Abelard contended for the doctrine of disinterested love,
saying, "Whoever seeks in God not Himself, but something else, does not in reality love Him, but that other
1

thing." 1 Abelard set aside the objective aspect of the
atonement, and dwelt upon its moral influence. Anselm
considered that Divine justice is the cause of an atonement being made. Abelard attributed it entirely to the
love of God. Mercy is free to forgive on repentance.
There is no need of a satisfaction. The object of the
incarnation and death of Jesus Christ is to produce
repentance. Yet Abelard attributes a good deal to the
intercession of the Redeemer; 2 and he helped on the
reaction against the notion of satisfaction being made to
the devil by the death of Christ. Regarding the death
of Christ simply as a manifestation of Divine love, he
thereby struck at the root of the strange theory which
had fascinated many minds. His view was defective,
but it thoroughly undermined the idea of paying a price
to the evil spirit for the ransom of mankind, or of gaining
a victory over him by some sort of deception.
Abelard's views were one-sided in a different direction
from that of Anselm ; but it must be admitted that he
saw truth in some quarters where, in his age, it was not
commonly discerned. He died in reconciliation with
the . Church, and in his latter days manifested sincere
piety, with deep repentance for the sins of early life.
It may be observed,in passing, that JOHN OF SALISBURY (died I 180), a pupil of Abelard, but unlike him, was
a great admirer of the ancient philosophers, and an antagonist of the mere logical studies of scholasticism ; yet
1

N eander, vol. VIII. p. 127.
This is stated by Shedd, Hist. Doct., vol. IJ. p. 287, who refers
to Abelard's Com. ad Rom. "Anselm develops the thought of. a
reconciliation of God in the death of Jesus Christ by means of legal
conceptions ; Abelard, the thought of a reconciliation of men with
God in respect to the moral disposition of the parties towards each
other."-Ritschl, p. 24.
2

A.D. 1000-1518.]

Bernard.

2 37

he himself discussed metaphysical methods, and all sorts
of questions-respecting substances and forms, matter
and movement, time, space, number, and the first be'
ginnings of things.
But a more important person here awaits attention.
BERNARD (A.D. 1091-1153) was a totally different man
from Abelard. In contrast with the rationalistic temperament of the one comes out the gushing affection of
the other. Bernard's theology is steeped in an evangelical spirit, and indicates an estimate of Divine grace
in agreement with the teaching of Augustine.
He
exhibits "a decided opposition to the speculative, and as
deep a love for the contemplative or mystical theology."
He does not travel over philosophical lines at all, but
keeps to the beaten paths of religion. He appears as a
preacher, not as a schoolman. His writings consist chiefly
of a large collection of sermons and letters, among which,
with much relating to ecclesiastical questions and monas- Âˇ
tic affairs, numerous passages of a doctrinal description
may be found ; but these must be looked for chiefly in
his treatises on grace and free will, and the errors of
Abelard. 1
His standpoint, as opposed to that of Abelard, appears
in the following passage: "While Abelard," he said,
" professes to explain all things by reason, even those
which lie beyond the limits of reason, he fights at once
against faith and reason ; for what is more contrary to
reason than through reason to seek to soar above
reason? and what is more contrary to faith than to refuse
our belief to that which we cannot attain by reason ?
Mary is therefore commended because she believed without inquiry; and Zacharias is therefore punished because
1

Opera, Paris, 1845, tom. n. 18-63.

238

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

he would not believe until he had inquired." 1 Bernard
thus appears occupying the ground taken by Anselm.
At the same time he held fast hold of Church tradition. 2
Bernard arraigned Abelard, in his book on Abelard's
errors, for the heterodox views he had promulgated on
the doctrine of the Trinity, and in doing so reiterated the
teaching of Athanasius. He also combated Abelard's
views as to the possibility of remitting sin by a sovereign
act ; but he did not dwell on the necessity of a satisfaction,
as Anselm had done. He looked with some favour on
the old notion of a Âˇsatanic claim, chiefly in deference to
certain portions of patristic teaching; but "he only so far
gives adherence to it, that he in the same breath superadds the altogether diverse thought of a satisfaction to
God, which Christ, as the Head, gave for the body the
Church when He bore its sins in His death." He contended earnestly that Christ came into the world n~t
only to instruct, but to redeem, and that in the work of
our salvation Divine justice as well as Divine mercy is
illustrated. 3
No one else in his day came out more distinctly, or so
distinctly, on the subject of imputation. He explains the
passage in which Paul says, "If one died for all, then
were all dead,". by remarking that the satisfaction of one
was imputed to all, as one bore the sins of all. The
Head makes satisfaction for the members; Christ for
the body. 4 On the doctrine of justification he wavers
between the objective and subjective view. In one place
he says, "No one is without sin. Sufficient for all justification to me is the faith that He is gracious to nie
1

against whom I have sinned. All that He has agreed
not to impute against me is as if it had never been.
Not to sin is God's righteousness; God's forgiveness is
the righteousness of man." Again, "Whosoever is contrite for sin hungers and thirsts after righteousness ; let
him believe on Him who justifies the ungodly, and, justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God." Here
Bernard distinguishes between justification and sanctification. But in another passage he confounds the two.
"Fear goes before, that justification may follow after.
Perhaps, then, we are called in fear, and justified through
love. The just man lives by faith, but without doubt
through that which works by love." 1 He contended for
free will, and maintained that grace operates through free
will ; for no one, he says, is saved against his will ; the
will consents to the grace of God. In transforming our
perverse wills grace unites itself with them, enters into
them. From God comes the beginning of salvation, and
by Him it is carried on. 2 Grace, he says, influences the
will without destroying its freedom. Destroy free will,
and there is no subject for salvation. Set aside grace,
and there remains no sufficient cause of salvation.
Bernard wrote a remarkable book on the four stages
in the progress of love, in which spiritual fervour burns
in every page ; and in one of his sermons on the Canticles there is a passage which distinctly reveals the man,
and shows how his theology was bathed in spiritual
affection. " Dry is all nutriment of the soul if it be
not anointed with this oil. When thou writest, nothing
touches me if I cannot read Jesus there. He is the only
1

true remedy. When did ever hardness of heart, indolence,
or ill-will abide the presence of this holy name? If, for
example, I name Jesus as man, I present to myself the
meek and lowly of heart, the man radiant with all.virtue
and holiness, the same who is also Almighty God, who
can heal by His example and strengthen by His grace.
Of all this the name of Jesus at once reminds me." 1
There is a great deal in a passage like this which critics
will call mysticism; and objections of a literary kind may
be urged against some of the expressions employed. Nor,
in looking at the whole controversy between Bernard and
Abelard, can it be denied that the views of the latter
were less heretical in some respects than the former
represented ; even in some things Abelard seems to
have been logically right. Yet the conviction returns,
most important to be cherished in the study of theology,
that logic is not the only or the chief factor in producing
correct conceptions, and that the heart must have play as
well as the understanding, that the affections of a soul
saved by grace must be allowed scope in the determination and maintenance of doctrinal truth.
" In the theology of Bernard reason has a place, but
not the right one." "He is not prepared to admit the
great truth that if reason yields to faith, and assigns itself
anywhere a limit, it must be on grounds satisfactory to
reason ...... Faith with Bernard receives the treasure
of Divine truth, as it were, wrapped up (involutum).
Understanding may afterwards cautiously unfold the
envelope, and peep at the prize, but may never examine
the contents first, to determine whether it shall be
received or not."~
1 In Cant., ser. xv. ยง 6.
2

Vaughan's Hours witlt the Mystics, vol.

I.

p. 117.

CHAPTER III.

SCHOLASTIC DIVINITY-continued.

W

ORKS denominated Sentences and Summm were
written at this time, the former consisting of
passages from patristic writers, the latter claiming the
character of original compositions, treating of theological
topics in systematic form.
The Quatuor Libri Sententiarum of_PETER LOMBARD,
who died A.D. I 164, are conspicuous in the catalogue of
scholastic volumes, and they won for the author a
renown which, though different from what it was six
or seven hundred years ago, has at the present time by
no means expired.
"It is," says Dean Milman," an elaborate compilation
of passages from the writings of eminent Latin doctors ;
a tissue stiff with antique embroideries, and displaying the
ingenuity of the artist who has so curiously wrought the
patchwork into a whole. He introduces little reasoning
of his own, only enough to give a consistency to his
citations, and he avoids all reference to the opinions of
heathen philosophers. He seems throughout on his guard
against the suspicion of exercising the privilege of thinking for himself too far, endeavouring to show that he follows received opinions rather than his own speculations.''
This was the fashion of the age, and the glory of literature ; and it is curious to contrast in this respect the
fashion of our own age, and the glory of contemporary
R

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

writers, for now the chief object sought and the chief
praise enjoyed is that of originality. Everybody who
aims at making a mark in the republic of letters strives,
sometimes with immense agony, to strike out a course
which, perhaps he only fancies, has not been pursued
before. The main characteristic of Peter's achievement
is that he reduced the whole array of acknowledged
opinions into systematic shape ; preceding divines had
gone over a wide range of topics, Âˇbut Peter was the
first to gather them all up, and to present them in
logical order and sequence. It was the beginning of
those vast dogmatical structures which, in complicated
bulk, have been compared to the huge cathedrals of
Gothic architecture.
The first part of the Sentences is devoted to the
subject of the Holy Trinity; the second, to the creation
of bodily and spiritual existences ; the third, to the
incarnation oft.he Eternal Word and correlative themes;
and the fourth, to sacraments and sacramental signs.
In the first part, after discussing mysterious questions
relative to the Divine nature and personality, he takes up
the subject of Divine knowledge, foreknowledge, providence, predestination, will, and power; and inquires in
what respect predestination and prescience differ from
each other. He replies that predestination is a preparation for grace, and cannot operate apart from prescience;
but prescience is quite possible apart from predestination.
For through predestination the Almighty foresees the
good which He intends to do Himself, and also foreseessimply foresees-the evil which others, not Himself, will
accomplish. He predestinates to eternal life those whom
He chooses; the rest He reprobates, because He foresees
that they will sin and incur eternal death. After this

A.D.

ro6o-r518.J

Peter Lombard.

243

explanation he concludes that none of the predestinated
can be lost, and none of the reprobate can be saved, and
that therefore the number of the elect can neither be
increased nor diminished. Following Augustine, he
maintains that grace is the result of predestination, even
that grace by which we are justified, by which we are
helped to persevere in a holy life, and by which also we
shall at last be beatified; and that as it regards reprobation, a distinction is to be made between iniquity and its
punishment-iniquity has not been predestinated, only
foreseen, but iniquity being foreseen, punishment is
predestinated as the consequence.
In the second part we have disquisitions touching
angelic natures-those that remain perfect and those
that fell; also respecting good angels, whether they have
been confirmed by grace, so that it is impossible for
them to sin, and whether they possess a corporeal as
well as spiritual essence ; moreover, he discusses the
creation of mankind, the nature of the soul, the fact of
the fall, and the origin of evil. The relation of Adam
to his posterity, and the consequences entailed by his
offence, are treated at large, Peter all the way through
walking in the footsteps of his great master, the Bishop
of Hippo.
The third book takes up, besides the Incarnation,
which is presented in the orthodox way, the meritorious
work of Christ for us men and for our salvation. But on
this point we find comparatively little. Fifteen sections
are devoted to the incarnation, and five to what is generally understood by the atonement. Here he considers
whether it was necessary that Christ should suffer and
die, or whether in some other way men could have been
delivered; the only division which goes to the heart of
R 2

244

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART lV.

the question,namely, what our Lord did to secure redemption, is put in this form," how by Christ's death we are
delivered from the devil and from sin." From the devil
and from sin, Peter says, we are delivered by the death of
Christ, because, according to Paul, in Rom. v., "we are justified by His blood," in sanguine ipsius justificati sumus:
and inasmuch as we are justified, we are freed from sin
and released from Satan, who held us captive in the
chains of sin. Much follows respecting deliverance from
sin and Satan; but nowhere is the idea introduced
that this has been effected through a satisfaction made
to the evil one. The deliverance throughout is mainly
treated as moral, and the power of the atonement is
exhibited as consisting in the manifestation of the love
of God, through which love is excited in our hearts towards Him. But Peter does not finish without recurring
to the old idea of Gregory the Great and others, of a bait
or snare being laid for Satan. 1 He still chiefly looks
at the whole subject from a moral point of view, and
when speaking of Jesus Christ as a Mediator, he remarks,
" We were enemies to God because our sins were inimical
to His righteousness; and so our sins being dismissed, the
enmity is at an end, and we, whom He justifies, are reconciled to the Just One." Still some of his expressions Âˇ
may be made to cover a further meaning, and to include
forgiveness as well as purification ; as when he says,
" Christ is called Mediator, in that coming between God
and man He reconciles them to each other. He reconciles
by taking the offences of men out of the sight of God,
1 "Tetendit ei muscipulam crucem suam; posuit ibi quasi escam
sanguinem suum. Ille autem sanguinem suum fudit, non debitoris,
per quad recessit a debitoribus. Ille quippe ad hoe sanguinem
suum fudit ut peccata nostra deleret."-Lib. III. dist .. xrx. I.

Peter Lombard.

A.D. !060-151 .]

245

whilst He blots out the sins at which God was offended
and which made us His enemies." 1 Peter also represents
Christ as bearing the punishment of our sins ; but he
admits that some other method of salvation might have
been possible, though a better cannot be imagined. 2
The nature of faith is handled in the third book, and
three kinds are pointed out-credere in Deum, vel Deo, vet
Deum. The first means to believe that what He has said
is true, which kind of faith the wicked have. The second,
to believe in His existence, which also the ungodly do.
The third, to believe so as to love and obey; and by
this faith the sinner is justified, as his faith begins to
work by love, for they only are good works which are
performed from love to the Almighty. Love is the work
of faith. The faith which devils and false Christians have
is a quality of the mind, but it is ineffectual, because
without charity or love. After connecting faith with love,
he goes on to connect it with hope, quoting from the
eleventh chapter of Hebrews : "Faith is the substance of
things hoped for, the evidence (argumentum vel convictio)
of things not seen." 3
The fourth book is taken up with prelections on
the sacraments, baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist,
penance, unction, ordination, and marriage. With re. spect to the Eucharist this scholastic divine has much
to say. He believed and taught what ~ad been for
some time a prevalent doctrine, namely, that the bread
and wine after consecration become truly the body and
blood of Christ; but his language on the subject is by
many supposed to go further than the point which,
according to a careful examination of his Sentences, l
1

Lib.

III.

dist.

6.
Dist. XXIII. 4, 7,

XIX.
3

â&#x20AC;˘ Dist. xx:.

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

find that he actually reached. He says distinctly that
the real body and blood of Christ are present on the
altar, and that the substance of the bread bec:omes His
body, and the substance of the wine becomes His blood ;
but then he adds," If it be asked what kind of change
this is, whether formal or substantial or otherwise (qualis
sit ilia conversio, an formalis, an substantialis, vel alterius
generis), I am not able to define it." He states how it
seems to some to be a substantial change (substantiam
converti in substantiam), and how others oppose that
view; for himself he says, It is a mystery of faith to
be well believed, but not capable of being well investigated and defined. 1 But he subsequently ventures,
though with caution, and even timidity, to allow that the
accidents of bread and wine, such as taste and weight,
remain without their previous basis (sine sub.Jecto), because no substance is there now, except the body and
blood of the Lord, which is not affected by these
accidents. 2 This is going as far as possible without
using the word transubstantiation. That word, in reference to the eucharist, occurs in an exposition of the
Canon of the Mass, professing to contain the opinions of
Peter Damiani; and Stephen, Bishop of Autun (A.D. I I 12
-1136), represents our Lord as saying, "Panem quem
accepi in corpus meum transubstantiavi." 3 And the word
in one of its forms came to be authoritatively sanctioned
and enforced in the Lateran decree of I 2 I 5 ; such words
as transition or translation (transfertur) having been
previously employed.
Lib. IV. <list. xf. r, 2, 3.
~ Dist. XII. r.
Robertson, vol. v. p. 4n. Gieseler, vol. II. p. 331. He says
Hildebert of ToursÂˇ was the first who made use of the term transubstantiatio.
Âˇ
1

3

A.D.

rofo-1518.]

Peter Lombard.

2 47

At the same time Peter Lombard closely connected
the idea of a sacrifice with the eucharistic celebration,
remarking that what is offered and consecrated by the
priest may be called a sacrifice' and oblation, because
it is the memorial and representation of the true sacrifice
and the holy immolation made on the altar of the
cross. 1
As to penance, we find this writer maintaining that
it consists of three parts-the compunction of the heart,
the confession of the lips, and the satisfaction of the life
in good works; and when discussing the question if
confession to God alone be sufficient without confession
to a priest, he decides that it is not sufficient, if there be
an opportunity for making the other kind of confession ;
but as to priestly power, he concludes that it is only
declarative, and that absolution avails so far as it agrees
with the Divine judgment.2
Such, then, are some of the distinctive characteristics
of this eminent schoolman, which we have thought it
proper to state at some little length, because his work
became a text-book for subsequent divines, and his
influence on Âˇtheological thinkers long afterwards was
very great.
In concluding what we have to say of
him, it may be remarked, that as to his manner of
teaching, he presents a striking contrast to his predecessor Peter Abelard. That philosopher, "whether pyrrhonist or more than pyrrhonist, had left" theological
as well as other questions "in all the confusion of strife;
he had set Fathers against Fathers, each Father against
himself, the Church again~t the Church, tradition against
tradition, law against law. The Lombard announced
himself as the media.tor, the final arbiter in this endless
1

Lib. IV., dist. XU.

2

Lib. IV., <list. XVU., XVIII.

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

litigation; he would sternly fix the positive, proscribe
the negative or sceptical view, in all these questions.'' 1
Abelard was a doubter, Lombard was a believer-but
not a believer like Bernard. He had none of the warmth
and glow of his orthodox and evangelical contemporary.
He reasoned as a schoolman, coldly and dogmatically ;
whereas Bernard had resisted Abelard as the modern
popular preacher grapples with scientific rationalists.
Summa! and Sententia!, epitomes and citations, became the order of the day, few of them adding anything,
either in form or substance, to previous theological dissertations. Perhaps an exception should be made on behalf of ALANUS DE INSULIS, a Parisian doctor (died A.D.
1202), who wrote a work entitled, Ars Catholica! Fidei ex
rationibus naturalibus demonstrata. He carefully guards
against being thought faithless to authority, by saying
that Jews and Mahomedans would not submit to the
Bible and the Church, and therefore such persons required
to be met by rational arguments, that so they might be
made obedient to authority. Forthwith he proceeds by
definitions and demonstrations to establish the existence
of God, and even the doctrine of the Trinity, saying
there are three causes which concur in the formation of
substances-matter, form, and the combination of the
two. Matter he attributes to the Father, form to the
Son, and combination to the Spirit. In this way Alanus
fancied that the Trinity may be proved.
On the Âˇother hand, there were writers in those days
who had no sympathy with these appeals to reason, and
looked upon them as a virtual surrender of the faith ;
whilst they themselves pursued the simple, old-fashioned
method of searching the Bible to prove what is true.
1

Milman's Latin Christianity, vol.

VJ.

p. 438.

A.D. 106o-1518.]

Reign of Realism.

249

Gauthier, Canon of St. Victor, signalized himself
in this way, opposing Abelard, Peter Lombard, and
others of that school. Simon of Tournay, David of
Dinant, and Amalric of Bena; who will be noticed
amongst the mystics, were of the same class with
Gauthier.
The second period of the scholastic philosophy,
according to Tennemann, as we have seen, extends from
the end of the eleventh century, when the great dispute
began between nominalists and realists, to the middle
of the thirteenth century, and includes Roscellin, Abelard, Bernard, and -Peter Lombard. During this time
a struggle was going on between realism on the one
hand, and conceptualism and nominalism on the other ;
philosophy being held in check more or less by the
authority of religion. But the third period opened under
the exclusive dominion of realism, the advocates of the
new school being driven from the field as aiding and
abetting heresy; but the relative position of religion
and philosophy became somewhat changed, philosophy,
if in some cases not supreme, taking a higher relation
to religion than it had done before.
At this crisis two circumstances occurred which
require some notice before we pass any further. First,
'the erection of new universities, a result of the impulse given to a desire for intellectual culture, provided
increased means and opportunities for the study of
theology. The Emperor Frederic founded the university of Naples A.D. 1224; Robert, a native of Sorbonne, in
Champagne, founded at Paris, in 1250, the university
which still bears the name of his birthplace; Charles of
Anjou, in 1265, founded a school at Rome. Universities
at Padua, Ferrara, and Piacenza were afresh provided

250

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

for Italians. Lisbon became furnished with a seminary
of learning ; and Bologna, as well as Paris, entered on. a
new career of prosperity, and attracted within the walls
-of those cities numbers of Germans, who had then no
large educational institutes of their own.
Secondly, a revival of the study of Aristotle distinguished this epoch. Aristotle had long been known to
Western students in general only through translations by
Victorious and Boethius. Then came Arabic versions,
circulated in the Saracenic schools of Spain, versions in
which much foreign matter was mingled with the genuine
writings of the Stagyrite. Pantheistic tendencies were
attributed to works of this description, and this brought
them into disrepute. Abelard's fondness for the study
of Aristotle served to increase the unpopularity of the
latter for a while amongst orthodox divines; and Bernard
looked on him with great suspicion. Aristotle's metaphysical and philosophical works were forbidden at Paris
in A.D. I 2 I 5 ; and Gregory IX., in I 2 3 I, excluded them
"until they should have been examined and purged from
all suspicion of errors." Yet the dialectics of Aristotle held
their ground. But a reaction not long afterwards took
place. His genuine writings on metaphysics, psychology,
and ethics were translated from the Greek, free from
Mussulman expositions, and were found to be of a very
different character from what had been before supposed
by certain orthodox teachers. 1 The philosophical doctrines, as well as the dialectic forms of the Greek sage,
made their way amongst professors in the universities,
and obtained a decided triumph, forcing the Platonism Âˇof
the earlier scholastics, which they derived from Augustine
1
On the question as to how the scholastics became acquainted
with Aristotle, see U eberweg, vol. r. p. 430.

Neglect of Classical Studies.

A.D. 1060--1518.J

25 I

and other Church Fathers, into the background. Aristotle was exalted on high as the great master of human
thought. A poem was written on the life and death of
Aristotle by a Cologne theologian ; and some even called
this great philosopher the precursor of Christ.
In connection with these two circumstances particularly characteristic of the period before us, a third may
be mentioned, originating at an early date, but perpetuated
down to the twelfth century and afterwards. We allude
to the neglect, or rather the condemnation, of classical
studies. The revived fame of the Stagyrite came not on
account of his belonging to the illustrious band of Greek
authors. The classic poets, both Greek and Latin, were
under a theological ban. All commendable reading
nearly was confined within the channel of divinity.
Philosophy was held in honour because-almost if not
entirely because-it linked itself closely to sacred truths
and sacred speculations. Homer and Virgil were differently regarded. Jerome describes himself as warned in
a heavenly vision against Cicero, though Cicero was a
philosopher as well as an orator ; and the Latin Father
tells us how he came to the conclusion, " Lord, if ever I
possess profane books and read, I will confess to having
denied Thee." 1 Alcuin too tells a story how, when a
boy in bed, he was attacked by demons for reading the
classics, and how he vowed, " If I continue to love Virgil
more than the Psalms, may I undergo such chastisement."
Lovers of the classics, notwithstanding, by stealth or
through ingenious excuses, sometimes managed to dip
into proscribed volumes. Not daring to remain in Egypt,
they would, it has been amusingly remarked, spoil the
Egyptians; avoiding heathen alliances, they would capture
1

Epist. ad Eustochium,

XVIII,

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

a heathen woman in war, and marry her, after shaving
her head and paring ,her nails ; and though not making
a dinner off the writings of Cicero, they ventured to
make out of him a dessert afterwards. 1 But rebukes and
protestations in reference to such liberties continued to
occur ; and we find Herbert de Losinga, Bishop of Norwich, who died A.D. I I 19, relating to two young students
a vision he had beheld, somewhat after the manner of
Jerome, in which a venerable lady reproved him for
being busy with the fictions of Ovid and Virgil. "Unseemly is it," said she, "that Christ should be preached
and Ovid recited by the same mouth; nor can that heart
set forth the truth of the gospel aright which makes
search into the shameful impurities of the poets; he
cannot be pure from the pollution of sin who delights
himself in a song which celebrates sins." 2 Herbert de
Losinga's letter ends with the following passage: "Wherefore, my beloved sons, I took counsel thenceforward to
look over the sacred books, to search into the sage maxims of the holy Fathers, to alter the misshapen proportions of my studies, and to bring back my way of life and
my actions to the impress and character of the truth.
Henceforth I will speak to you of Christ only, I will
write to you of Christ; by my words and by my letters
will I imprint Christ on your minds, doing this one thing
especially, and for the sake of that doctrine refraining
from propounding to you any other." This last resolve
of a media!val Churchman, wisely interpreted, is well
worth the attention of modern candidates for the Christian ministry.
It was under these circumstances that the third period
1
2

of scholasticism opened, and ALEXANDER HALES, the
Irrefragable Doctor, ran his distinguished career. He
was an Englishman, called Hales because he was educated
in the monastery of Hales, Gloucestershire. He entered
the Franciscan order, and taught at Paris, where he died
A.D. 1245. Alexander was the first scholastic who became
acquainted with the whole circle of Aristotelian philosophy, and first used it in theological service. He also
was acquainted with the works of Avicenna. The doctrine of realism appears in his writings ; but he regarded
universals not as independent essences apart from God,
but as existing in the Divine mind. They are the types
of things, and are also identical with Divine efficient
causes.
Hales' great work is his Summa Universce Theologice, 1
and, like the Sentences of Peter Lombard, it is divided
into four books. But, unlike his predecessor, he is far
more than a laborious compiler; for, after what was then
an original fashion, he made use of" philosophical doctrines
for the demonstration of theological dogmas." 2 The first
book consists of seventy-four questions touching God and
the Trinity; the second embraces one hundred and eightynine questions relative to creation, to angels, to man,
and to sin; the third comprises eighty-three questions
Âˇ respecting redemption, the person of Christ, the law, and
grace ; the fourth contains one hundred and fourteen
questions suggested by the sacraments of the Church.
Discussions under these heads, somewhat rambling, it
would appear, include all sorts of metaphysical and
verbal subtleties, often with regard to that which is most
mysterious and unintelligible.
Many of his questions
1
2

Printed at Venice 1475, Nuremberg 1482.
Ueberweg, vol. I. p. 433.

254

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART JV.

are frivolous, some very objectionable. Quotations of all
sorts-Biblical, patristic, and classical-are introduced ;
and the attempt is made to reconcile the Fathers in
instances where they are most discordant. The method
pursued is often so subtle and sophistical as to make the
difference between black and white very small. Whatever might be the effect of the Aristotelian revival on
some minds in the way of driving Platonism into the
background, it would seem that Hales, after all his study
of Aristotle, was rather Platonic than Aristotelian in
some parts at least of his philosophy, but he was fond
enough of Aristotelian formularies. He confessed imperfect knowledge, insisted strongly on the need of a
revelation, and maintained that only through grace can
the pure in heart see God. The perception of spiritual
truth, according to Alexander, depends upon the moral
state of the affections rather than the exercise of reason.1
He reckons evil as that which contributes to manifest
the harmony of the universe. " By comparison with
evil the good shines forth more conspicuously in its own
essence." 2 And in relation to grace and works, he suggests that "the goodness of God shines forth in this,
that in communicating Himself to man He imparts to
him not only single operations of grace, but also the capacity in a certain sense of independent co-operation ; " 3 a
position which, however guarded, is a very dangerous one.
ALBERTUS MAGNUS (A.D. l 193-1280) wrote such a
number of works that they fill twenty-one folios. 4 His
Summa Theologim is a scholastic system after the approved
method.
In the writings of this schoolman the scholastic method
' Quoted by Neander, Eccl. Hist., vol.
3 fbid. p. 265.
Ibid. p. 249.

2

VIII,

p. 182.
â&#x20AC;˘ Lyons, 1651.

A.D. 106o-1518.]

Albert Magnus.

attained its highest point. He differed from Alexander
Hales, and would not concede that man is without power
to discover truth, and that it can be reached only through
purity of heart. But though in a certain sense he might
be said to be thus rationalistic, he earnestly contended
that the faith of the Church was in strict accordance
with reason; upon the authority of its teaching he relied,
from its dictum he declined to swerve. Church doctrine
transcends all human philosophy, and is the embodiment
of the highest reason. The V ulgate was with Albert the
authentic Word of God. To the Fathers of the Church
he attributed the gift of inspiration. The metaphysics
of Aristotle are said to have influenced his theology; a
Neo-Platonic element is detected in his theory of emanations from the first principle of all; in his doctrine of
original sin, through our descent from Adam, he expresses
the grossest conception of the existence in him of all his
posterity. It is justly said "the real value of what he
accumulated is of small amount."
His theology is
indeed an accumulation of ideas from all sources, good,
bad, and indifferent, and his chief if not only merit is
that of enormous industry; the accounts given of his
voluminous writings do not indicate that he made any
valuable contributions to theological science. 1
1 Ueberweg, vol. I. pp. 436-440.
Magnus " in Herzog, Encyclop.

See article on "Albertus

CHAPTER IV.

SCHOLASTIC DIVINITY-continued.

T

HOMAS AQUINAS, or Thomas of Aquino (A.D. 12241274), "Doctor Angelicus," as he was styled, ranks
chief amongst the theologians of his day, and he will ever
remain illustrious for his penetrating and comprehensive
intellect, and for his indomitable industry. His works
were published in seventeen volumes, 1576; in twentythree volumes, 1660. They include the Catena Aurea,
a commentary on the four Gospels; original expositions ;
a Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard ;
The Truth of the Catholic Faith; part .of The Government of Princes; and controversial pieces against the
Greek Church.
His wonderful work, the Summa Tlzeologim, is divided
into three parts. The first treats of God-Father, Son,
and. Holy Ghost, descending to the consideration of men
and angels. The second is twofold, the prima secundm
and the secunda secundm, in which he dwells upon the final
end of man, the nature of man, and the sin of man, the
new law of the gospel, and the operations of Divine grace.
In this he dilates also upon virtues and vices, and takes
up the subject of prophecy. The tertia pars of the
Summa is devoted to Christ's redemptive work, in connection with the nature and efficacy of sacraments~a
significant arrangement, indicative of the strong belief
of the media!val Church that sacraments are channels
through which redeeming love flows into sinful souls.

A.D. ro6o-1518.J

Thomas Aquinas.

257

Amidst a large amount of error we discover numerous
sound theological principles. Doctrines of importance
are clearly asserted by this acute and laborious schoolman, and defended against objections with patience
enough to astonish modern disputants. Any one who
will take the trouble to turn over the pages of his huge
volume, will see how few theological controversies there
are with regartl to which this subtle and comprehensive
thinker has not something to say. The dialectician is
plain enough in the minuteness with which he dissects
propositions, and the skill with which he binds them
together ; the realist philosopher is not less visible in
the conclusions at which he arrives; but, infinitely better,
the believer in.Christ is also manifest, in accordance with
the well-known story : he fancied he heard the Master
say, "Thou hast written well of Me, Thomas; what
shall be thy reward ? " "To have more of Thyself," he
replied.
In the prima pars he inquires into the nature and
boundaries of theology, and bases the science upon a
Divine revelation, the contents of which, though undiscoverable by reason, are, when made known, proper
subjects for inquiry and for defence. He discusses the
Divine existence, the Divine attributes, God's wilt, and
Âˇ God's providence. On the Trinity he is almost more
diffuse, even more minute than on the sole original Godhead. The most microscopic eye can hardly trace the
exquisite and subtle distinctions, the thin and shadowy
differences of words, which he creates or seizes. When
he enters upon the thorny theme of predestination, he
does not leave it until he has exhausted all which human
knowledge can supply. His views are Augustinian.
Aquinas connects predestination with what is good,
s

Scholastic Divinz"ty.

[PART IV.

prescience with what is evil. Predestination he holds to
be the cause of grace and glory; but reprobation is not
the cause of sin.1 "The scholastic distinction between
pa:na and culpa should be particularly noticed in reference
to the question of reprobation. The schoolmen would not
admit a predestination of guilt, for this would have
argued the presence of evil in the Divine mind." 2
In the prima secundm he goes fully into the subject
of man's sinfulness, raising inquiries in his usual way,
then answering them ; after which he examines what
may be said in opposition to his answers. Some of his
inquiries are very vain and fruitless; as, for example,
whether, if Adam had not sinned, and Eve alone had
transgressed, that would have involved posterity in the
evil of original sin. He decides that it would not. 3 He
maintains the negative nature and origin of evil, and the
voluntariness of transgression; in this he follows Augustine
with some modification. He represents sin as entailed
on posterity by Adam's fall, and minutely discusses the
extent of the physical evils thereby produced.
He
implies, where he does not assert, the connection between
Adam and his posterity, but he does not dwell upon it
at any great length; he has, however, much to say about
venial and mortal sin, already an important point in the
casuistry of the Church. There are not so many salient
points in Aquinas' doctrine of sin as might be expected,
and he lags behind his master Augustine in some of the
redeeming aspects of his thoughtfulness on this subject. 4
The doctrine of merit obtains much attention. Apart
1

from grace Aquinas denies that man has any merit, but
through grace he is admitted to the privileges of Divine
sonship, and so acquires a kind of merit. The schoolmen
distinguished between the merit of congruity and the
merit of condignity: the former was the merit of fitnessin the common sense of the word, no merit at all-the
latter was the merit of desert, which we commonly mean
by the expression ; Aquinas and others taught, that
though man can have no merit in the way of desert
looking at him as a fallen being, there may be merit
in him of that kind, when he is regarded as in a state
of grace. For through redemption he is placed in a
new relation to God; and then, whilst having no claim
on God in and of himself, he obtains a claim through
that meritorious Saviour to whom he is livingly united.
It is not only congruous that he should receive a reward,
but, through Divine grace and Christ's work, he is really
worthy of it. But Âˇ merit of con dignity in the highest
sense, absolute merit in oneself, belongs only to Jesus
Christ. 1 So far from regarding the doctrine of Divine
grace as opposed to his doctrine of human merit, Aquinas
viewed the second of these as a consequence of the first.
In his estimation human merit resulted from Divine grace.
The logical consequences drawn by Protestants from
some of his perilous propositions he would have denied,
and the practical abuses springing from the dogma in
after times would, one might suppose, looking at his
character as well as his opinions, have called forth his
indignant protest.
In connection with the scholastic doctrine of merit
there arose the idea of works of supererogation, which
1

had a root in Aquinas' distinction between counsels and
precepts-the latter being obligatory on all, the former
not so, but only a:ccepted and carried out because of
superior excellence of character. The merit in the one
case was supposed to be far greatyr than in the other.
Hence flowed the notion of good works by eminent
saints, kept in store for the rest of the Church, and
available to such as purchased them. The sale of indulgences was the fruit of this fatal idea.
"1\quinas places repentance under 'the head of commutative justice, being a compensation for offences committed. "To the reduction of _the subject under the
head of penal justice may be ascribed, in a great measure,
the unscriptural notions and unholy practices which grew
up in the Church in regard to the expiation of offences
and their respective criminality." 1 Repentance, meaning
by that a change of mind, is slightly noticed by Aquinas.
He inquires into the nature of justification, and
discusses the subject at great length. Following Peter
Lombard in the order of his topics, he takes up this
point before he approaches the doctrine of redemption
through Jesus Christ, and consequently fails to bring
out the connection betweenÂˇ a sinner's acceptance with
God and what has been accomplished on his behalf by
our Saviour. It may serve to illustrate the way in which
Aquinas treats the subject as a whole, to enumerate
the series of questions which he proposes to answer.
First, whether justification be the remission of sins.
Secondly, whether for this remission the infusion of grace
be needful. Thirdly, whether for it the exercise of free
will is requisite. Fourthly, whether the exercise of faith
be required. Fifthly, whether there must be a volition
1

Hampden' s Bampton Leet., FÂˇ 248.

A.D, !060-1518.]

Thomas Aquinas.

261

of the mind against sin. Sixthly, whether the remission
of sins ought to be numbered amongst those things
which are essential to justification. Seventhly, whether
justification be instantaneous or Âˇprogressive. Eighthly,
whether the infusion of grace be first in the order of
nature amongst those things which are necessary for
justification.
Ninthly, whether justification be the
greatest work of God. And tenthly, whether it is a
miraculous operation. 1 We have not space to give the
answers of this illustrious schoolman to all these questions. It is sufficient to state that he begins by saying
justification is the remission of sins; then he argues that
infused grace is required for the purpose; then he connects with justification the exercise of free will and
faith ; and then he insists upon the hatred of evil as
a further prerequisite. Afterwards he speaks of the
remission of guilt as the completion of justification (qua:
sese lzabet in justi.ftcatione tanquam dus consummatio).
He proceeds to remark that justification is instantaneous, not because pardon is so, but because the infusion
of grace is so. Though justification at first is described
as the remission of sins, it is plain, from what follows,
that this remission is not the beginning, but the end or
consummation of it, for which, from first to last, the
infusion of grace operating upon the will is the main
causative power.
In the secunda secunda: he handles the subject of
faith, which he regards under a variety of aspects, as being
a principle of life and righteousness, and a spiritual power
imparted to the soul lying at the root of all Christian
virtues. 2 And we may here remark, in relation to Divine
1
2

grace, that the metaphysical doctrine of realism stamps
his views with a characteristic impress which none can
mistake. He does not use the word to indicate the
general fact of a gracious influence being exercised on
the hearts of men by the Holy Spirit, but to designate
what he and the schoolmen in common regarded as
something positive and substantial in the nature of
God, capable of being distinctly defined, and of being
divided into a number of properties or parts.
The incarnation and redemption of Christ are taken
up fully in the third part of the Summa. Respecting
the incarnation, he holds the views approved by the
Church. To the theology of the atonement he made
some contributions. Besides concluding in favour of the
necessity of an atonement, as others before had done,
maintaining that no other mode of redemption could be
adopted if Scripture prophecy and the claims of Divine
justice were to be taken into account, he opens up
some new views. He combines a notion of deliverance
from the devil with the Anselmic conception of a Divine
satisfaction, and says that Christ is a twofold Redeemer,
liberating us from the power of the evil one and reconciling us to Almighty God ; 1 but "he recognizes the
redemption of men from sin and from the devil only
as a consequence of the reconciliation of men with
God, which was brought about by means of Christ's
death." 2
Aquinas brings out more prominently than had been
done before the priestly office of Christ, and the abounding merit of His sacrificial sufferings; for Anselm had
thought more of the incarnation and the obedience of
1
2

Christ than of His death as a satisfaction for sin. 1 In
reference to what Christ endured on the cross Aquinas
runs into fanciful particulars, and the idea of a superabundance in the Redeemer's merit 2 was so pushed as to
make it contribute to the papal theory of supererogation.
At the same time, Aquinas distinguishes between the
suffict"ency and efficacy of the Saviour's work, regarding
its intrinsic value as infinite, and its application as
limited. As to the need of the atonement, he deemed
it necessary for saving mankind, both because it had
been preordained, and also because it was required as a
satisfaction to Divine righteousness. 3
He goes beyond Anselm when he distinguishes
between the satisfaction and merit of Christ's death,
teaching that by it He not only made a satisfaction for
human guilt, but earned for us a title to eternal life. 4
To him also belongs the theological distinction between
our Lord's active and passive obedience ; and further, he
alludes to a connection between the Redeemer and the
redeemed, as resembling that between the head and the
members, by which union grace in Him is communicated
to them, and thus they form a spiritual unity. Thus to
the principle of substitution Aquinas adds another very
important one, that of a mystical fellowship between the
Saviour and His Church.
Aquinas followed the practice in his time established
of regarding the sacraments as seven in number, believing
that though Christ instituted only baptism and the Lord's
1 Tertia pars, quest. xxu.
2 " Non solum sufficiens sed etiam superabundans satisfactio
pro peccatis humani generis.''
3 Tertia pars, quest. XLVI.-XLIX.
4 On the doctrine of Aquinas respecting satisfaction and merit,
see Ritschl, pp. 51-59.

Scltolastic Divinity.

[PART IV,

Supper, He virtually prepared for the rest. He explained
the form as well as the matter of sacraments. "Interpreting," says Dr. Hampden, of the scholastic philosopher,and his words apply to Aquinas,-" interpreting those
passages of Scripture which speak of things made by the
Word of God, as denoting expressly the creative efficacy
of the second person of the Trinity, he connected the
communication of forms to matter with the \Vord of God
throughout ; that is, he conceived the Divine words
uttered to carry that mystical creative force which belonged to the Divine Word as existing in the Trinity. 1
Hence it was that certain words accompanying the
celebration of a sacrament were said to be the form of a
sacrament. In a manner analogou5 to the original formation of all things by the Divine Word acting on matter,
it was conceived that the sacred words pronounced Âˇby
1

the priest came with power to the element or matter, and
imposed on it a mystical or sacramental form. Thus a
sacrament has been described as consisting of matter and
form : the ~atter being the water; or the bread and wine;
or in confirmation the chrism ; in penance the contrition
of the penitent ;-the form the particular words of consecration uttered by the priest. Hence too the use of the
word element itself to denote the consecrated bread and
wine; these being viewed, like the four imagined elements
of the material world, as the bases of the sacred natures
into which they were transformed. A certain matter
and certain form are thus considered as indispensable to
a sacrament." 1 In connection with this subject, it is
worthy of notice that Protestants, even Puritans and
Noi:iconformists, who shrink with horror from the
scholastic doctrine of the real presence, still commonly
retain the use of the old scholastic term elements as
descriptive of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper.
As hinted already, and this is important, the subject of
sacraments is taken up in the Tertia pars of the Summa
Theologice, immediately after Aquinas has unfolded the
redemptive work of Christ; and he exhibits baptism and
the Lord's Supper as media by which the blessings of
redemption are conveyed to mankind.
1
Bampton Ltcture, p. 335. It may be noticed here that the word
sacramentum is by medi~val writers used in a veqâ&#x20AC;˘ loose and varied
sense. The meaning seems to be something outward, yet something
which that outward aspect does not exhaust. It is applied to Old
Testament types, symbolical rites, events in Christ's life, doctrinal
mysteries, indeed almost anything that is profound. See a copious
note on the subject in the Life and Letters of Herbert de Losinga, vol.
II. p. 21.
Sacramentum was especially taken to mean an oath,
pledge, engagement.
See Halley, Congregational Lecture on
Baptism, Leet. 1.

266

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV,

He was zealous in maintainihg the efficacy of sacraments, as appears in the third part of his Summa.
Forgiveness is by him connected with baptism. Every
baptized person is justified. Children as well as adults,
he says, are made members of Christ by baptism.1 It is
obvious that such a view must affect the idea of justification, since it tends to make it appear a magical benefit,
and whilst blending forgiveness with sanctification, it
takes away the proper and distinctive character of both.
The subject of the eucharist, as might be expected,
largely occupies the attention of this great schoolman.
Question after question is taken up and debated. Whether
in the sacrament the body of Christ be really present,
or is only there by figure and sign ; whether the substance
of bread and wine remains after consecration ; whether
it be annihilated or resolved ill'l:o its pristine elements ;
whether in the sacrament, after consecration, the accidents of bread and wine continue, and whether the change
be instantaneous. The first of these he answers by
affirming the real presence ; the second he meets by a
decided negative-the substance of the material elements
doe.s not remain ; to the third he replies that there is
neither annihilation nor resolution, but a stupendous conversion into the real body of our Lord by miraculous
operation ; as to the fourth, he says that the accidents
continue without the substantial form as the means of
exercising faith in Christian believers; the last he meets
by maintaining that this Divine mystery is not a matter
of degrees, of more or less, and therefore the change may
be regarded as instantaneous. 2 The disquisition is very
1 'Tertia pars,

minute, and the phraseology scholastic ; but although he
uses the words substantia and conversio, he gives no
succinct definition of the change under the word transubstantiatio. The idea is given, but not the exact phrase,
afterwards so common. A number of other points are
started, some trivial and even absurd ; as, for instance,
whether the body of our Lord enters into an animal
who by accident swallows the consecrated bread. Peter
Lombard had raised this inquiry, and answered it in the
affirmative. Aquinas does the same, only he says the
animal partakes acddenta!iter, not sacramenta!iter. In
reference to the sacrifice of the mass Aquinas expatiates
at great length ; and here he plunges into several sets of
intricate discussions, through which it is impossible here
to follow him, except to say that he believed the offering
of Christ on the cross to be commemorated and repeated
on the altar.
Proceeding to another subject, that which relates to
what is technically termed eschatology, we find Aquinas
treating it very copiously. He indulges in strange ctmj ectures as to the resurrection of the body, and asserts
that the final judgment will be carried on mentally,
because a verbal trial would occupy too long a time.
Christ will appear in the body which He had on earth,
but so glorified in form as to strike His enemies with
dismay. The Angelic Doctor includes the idea of
purgatory in this part of his discussions, but he wavers
as to the question how material fire can affect disembodied
souls. He thinks that all men do not enter purgatory;
the truly pious go to heaven, the decidedly wicked sink
into hell. In heaven, he says, there are degrees of
blessedness and glory, and the inhabitants are not disturbed by compassion for the lost ; and the torments of

268

Sclzolastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

the latter consist in useless repentance. Besides hell
and purgatory, he recognizes a limb us infantium, where
children are sent whÂˇo die unbaptized; and a limbus
patrum, where abode the Old Testament saints to whom
Christ went and preached. 1
Before closing this account of Thomas Aquinas, there
is another work of his which deserves some notice. The
Catena Aurea is a commentary on the four Gospels
collected out of the works of the Fathers, after the
manner indicated in a former chapter. 2 In this Catena
Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, the Gregorys, Chrysostom,
Ambrose, Augustine, and many others are introduced, in
no haphazard way, but with an ingenuity which makes
the whole series of passages appear as if they were the
composition of one person, names only being inserted at
the beginning of the quotations, to show what author is
being employed. The numerous pieces are admirably
dovetailed, oi- rather they constitute a beautiful specimen
of mosaic from end to end ; and the work certainly must
be allowed to furnish a far more connected and flowing
style of exposition than is generally found in modern
commentaries. Not only are Biblical notes and explanatory homilies employed, but theological treatises
are laid under contribution, so that the Catena becomes
decidedly dogmatic in mat~er and form ; for this reason
it is proper to notice it in these pages. Indeed, it may
be said that, taken generally, the drift of the book is far
more doctrinal than either practical or experimental.
The preface to St. Matthew is a succinct but wellarranged essay on the title and substance of the four
1 Tertia pars, supplem., Lxxv., LXIX.
in Hagenbach, vol. II. pp. 129-140.
2 See Part III. Chapter I.

Quotations are collected

A.D. 1060-1518.]

Thomas Aquinas.

Gospels, the emblems of the evangelists, their difference,
their harmony, and, above all, the sublimity of their
doctrine-consisting in its pre-eminent authority, its
sublime force, and the loftiness of its freedom. Under
the Old Testament, quoting from Augustine, Aquinas
writes, "because of the promise of temporal goods, and
the threateningÂˇof temporal evils, the tern poral Jerusalem
begets slaves; but under the New Testament, where
faith requires love, by which the law can be fulfilled, not
more through fear of punishment than from love of
righteousness, the eternal Jerusalem begets free men." 1
Doctrinal discussions occur in connection with certain
texts, around which there had long glistened and there
still burn the fires of controversy. For instance, in
commenting upon the Gospel of John, Aquinas presents,
in reference to the first chapter, a dissertation on the
Divinity of our Lord. AÂľiongst the annotations in the
third chapter may be found a full assertion of the
doctrine of baptismal regeneration ; and that favourite
tenet of medi~val Christendom is pressed into service
even in the comment on the sixteenth verse: "God
so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but
have everlasting life." Chrysostom is quoted, saying,
"Because God is merciful, instead of judgment He grants
an internal remission of all sins by baptism, and even,
after baptism, opens to us the door of repentance, which
had He not done all had been lost." 2 Upon the sixth
chapter-after quoting from Chrysostom the words,'' By
bread" (i. e. the bread which came down from heaven)
"is meant wholesome doctrine and faith in Him or His
body, for these are the preservatives of the soul "-the
1

Catena Aurea, Oxf., vol. I. p. 7.

2

Ibid., vol. IV. p. 117.

Scholastic Divinity.

270

[PART IV.

compiler takes occasion to unfold the doctrine of transubstantiation, and-using the language of Augustine and
Theophylact-Aquinas says, "This meat and drink (i. e.
the body and blood of Christ) is such that he that taketh
it not hath not life, and he that taketh it hath life, even
life eternal. For it is not the flesh of man simply, but of
God ; and it makes man Divine by inebriating him as it
were with Divinity." 1 The sacramental theory in this
and in other media:'.val theologians lies at the basis of all
Scripture interpretation and all doctrinal statement; it
is not merely a distinct opinion, but a kind of atmosphere
everywhere breathed, and through which every object is
looked at.
Notwithstanding the fame and influence of Thomas
Aquinas, he inet with opposition. One noted schoolman
challenged certain points in his system. This was DUNS
SC0TUS (A.p. 1308), "Doctor Subtilissimus." He wrote
a work entitled, Theologorum Principiis in Tertium et
Quartum Librum Sententiarium Qua:stiones Subtilissima:;
and in it he tracks the steps of former philosophers and
divines, especially Thomas Aquinas, whose theology receives a severely critical treatment at his dexterous hand.
A fundamental principle in the philosophy of Aquinas
was that the intellectual and moral nature of a being
controls the will ; a fundamental principle with Duns
Scotus was that the will is superior, and is the moving
agent in the whole realm of spiritual nature, Divine and
human. The first of these theologians taught that
what is right is not based upon will, that God commands what is good because it is good ; the second
contended that what is right is founded on will, and that
good is good because God commands it.
1

Catena Aurea, vol. IV. p. 24r.

A.D. JOOO-I5I8.]

DunsÂˇ Scotus.

Aquinas taught that the will is determined by the
understanding and the affections ; Duns Scotus insisted
on its sovereignty, holding that it has power to choose
without any determining ground. 'In short, he advocated
a liberty of indifference.
Aquinas affirmed the doctrine of predestination in
the Augustinian sense. Duns Scotus adopted an idea of
human moral action not much removed from Pelagianism.
Of course, as a Church theologian, he did not deny the
need of Divine grace, but he denied the need of that
grace which is prevenient-grace to come beforehand
and initiate the work of salvation. He thought it is in
the power of man's will to begin to love God supremely. 1
In harmony with this opinion, his view of justification
is chiefly subjective. Justification is described as a real
change in us, not in the forms of faith and hope, but in
that of love to God and our neighbour; but he acknowledges that it is of a complex character, including the
forgiveness of sin. 2 To admit any one to eternal life, he
says, must be taken to mean that the Almighty finds
him worthy of reward because of his present disposition.
The change has not its origin in the Divine will, which
is immutable, but in our will.
In reference to the incarnation of our Lord, it may
be noticed that a question was raised as to whether the
Word or Son of God would have become incarnate if sin
had not entered into the world. Aquinas seems at one
moment to lean in the affirmative direction, but at another he decides the negative to be more probable. Duns
Scotus, however. felt inclined to adopt the affirmative. 3
1

Duns Scotus denied the doctrine of An$elm and
Aquinas respecting the absolute necessity of the atonement, and insisted upon its relation to our deliverance
as being simply of Divine appointment, and as availing
just so far as God pleased to accept it on the sinner's
behalf. The Divine will, not the moral nature of the
Divine Being, he regarded as the fundamental ground
of redemption, and said that God might have accepted a
different provision, or He might have dispensed with an
atonement altogether.1 This view of a mysterious subject seems to have been derived from the notion of merit
entertained by Duns Scotus, for merit he defined as
anything for which he who accepts it is bound to give
something in return. 2 Aquinas regarded "the infinitude of Christ's satisfaction as arising from the intrinsic
nature of His work as estimated by the Divine standard.
Duns understands the infinitude of Christ's merit to
arise from the immeasurableness of its outward efficacy
when estimated by the human standard. In this way
Duns finds himself unable to concur in the statement of
Thomas, that the su.fficientia of Christ's work exceeds the
e.fficacia of its intrinsic value, counterbalancing the sins of
the whole world, while yet its operation is restricted to
believers." 3 He considered Christ as having in Himself
treasures of grace and virtue, which He communicates
to believers through their spiritual union with Him ;
and he described faith according to the first verse of
the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews; on
the whole subject he has much to say, and what he
says exhibits the subtlety for which he was renowned.4
1

He denied the infinite demerit of sin, yet. admitted that
an offence against God is greater than an offence against
man ; but the word infinitude, fr9m the very nature of
the idea, he affirmed to be inapplicable to an act committed by a finite creature; and with the notion of sin as
infinite disappears that of infinite punishment. It may
further be remarked, that this divine inculcated the
doctrine of the opus operatum, defining a sacrament as
conveying grace by its own virtue, so that no mental
exercise is required, but only that the mind abstains
from placing a bar in the way of Divine operation. 1
As an opponent to Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus is
very apt to be regarded as a rationalist arguing against
authority. This, however, is not the fact. He is not
found to be a doubter. He does not walk in the same
path as Abelard, discussing the Sic et non, and setting up
one thing against another. He is as dogmatic a theologian as his great contemporary Thomas. The object of
some of his demonstrations is to establish the authority
of Divine revelation ; and of course he did not deny, or
even question, the authority of the Church. Nor was he
in philosophy a nominalist any more than Aquinas,
though his realism differed from that of his rival-in a
way, however, which it is difficult to describe. The grand
distinction between the two theologians lies in the position they assigned to the will, whether Divine or human.
Moral perfection lies at the basis of the will of God, said
one. That will is the foundation of all morality, said the
other. The atonement is the result of a moral necessity,
said the first. It is a mere enactment of the will, said
the second. Virtue in man is the result of the will, controlled by spiritual motives and affections, said Thomas.
l

Lib.

IV.,

<list. r.-x.
T

274

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

It is the result of spontaneous volition, or volition guided
by calculations of expediency, said Scotus. A difference
in moral philosophy was thus added to a difference in
scientific divinity.
The followers of these theologians arranged themselves in two distinct and antagonistic schools. The
quarrels between them, though both were realists, became
as fierce and furious as the quarrels b路etween realists and
nominalists. The Thomists and the Scotists were two
sects who carried on a long warfare, the dispute often
becoming unintelligible; and what was lost in reason and
religion was made up by passion and prejudice. To make
the feud more bitter, the Dominican friars ranged themselves under the banner of Thomas, because he was a
Dominican ; and the Franciscan friars followed the
standard of Scotus, because he was a Franciscan; thus
rivalry between two orders intensified their intellectual
strifes.
Contemporary with Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus
was ROGER BACON (A.D. 1214-1292), called Docto1路
Mirabilis, the wonderful doctor,路 more of a philosopher
than a theologian, and therefore not claiming from us
so much notice as his vast intellectual superiority deserves.
He had in hirri the genius and courage of a reformer, and
in science anticipated several modern discoveries. But
, more important than any details of knowledge was the
true philosophical spirit appearing in his Opus Majus,
which induced him to push the principle of free inquiry
into all spheres of human thought, and which made him
an advocate for reform in all branches of science.
路
On looking into his works it is surprising to discover
how many theological references and allusions appear
from beginning to end. His reverence for the Scriptures

A.D. 1060-1518.]

Roger Bacon.

2 75

was profound. He uses the strongest expressions repecting the Bible as the depository and standard of truth,
saying, with Augustine, that what. is true may there be
found, and what is contrary to truth is there condemned.
He quotes Ambrose to the effect that in Christ are all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, that he who
knows Him needs to seek nothing more, for He is perfect
virtue and perfect wisdom. What is sought elsewhere,
Bacon remarks, will here be found. And as Sacred Scripture affords this knowledg~, it is clear that it includes all
truth; that what is contrary to it is er~or, and can have
nothing but the name of wisdom. He has much to say
on the subject of Scripture in connection with human
knowledge; and, amidst allegorical interpretations and
theological positions characteristic of the age, he contends
for the close connection between religion and science.I
He looked upon Divine revelation as the most precious
source of human knowledge, without which all that man
can discover would fail to serve the highest purpose of
his existence. In Bacon's musings on revelation and
nature, and on faith and reason, he went so far as almost,
if not quite, to touch the renowned argument of Bishop
Butler on the analogy between natural and revealed
religion. He saw difficulties in the one, and difficulties
in the other; in short, things incomprehensible by reason
in both these worlds of human thought. "To him," he
acutely remarks, "who denies the truth of the faith because he is unable to understand it, I will oppose in reply
the course of nature, and as we have seen it in exam pies." 2
Here we have the pith of the Analogy. A sentence in
Origen is drawn out into a treatise by the profound and
1
2

patient reasonings of the English bishop; also a condensation of the same method is found in the writings of
the English friar. " These and the like," Bacon goes on
to say, " ought to move men, and to excite them to the
reception of Divine truths. For if in the lowest objects
of creation truths are found before which the inward
pride of man must bow and believe, though it cannot
understand, how much more should man humble his
mind before the glorious truths of God." 1
One great aim of Roger Bacon was to bring theology .
and science into harmony with each other. It is curious
to find in the fourth part of his original treatise how he
insists upon mathematics as necessary to the understanding of Divine things, as the geography and chronology of Scripture, ecclesiastical subjects, the certification
of faith and the correction of the calendar. And in
working out his plan, which covers more than seventy
folio pages, his references to Scripture are most numerous.
He had no idea of science and theology being two
distinct fields of investigation ; he considered them as
inseparably connected. With him all heresy was unphilosophical, and, one might almost say, all false
philosophy was heretical.
Bacon has been regarded as a reformer before the
Reformation; but it must not be supposed that he
openly denied any dogmas of the Church, as did John
Wycliffe and Martin Luther. It would be difficult,
perhaps, to find a passage in the writings 9f this remarkable man plainly contradicting medi~val theology; but
numerous instances can be cited indicative of views
which tended to undermine the ecclesiastical system of
the age. He said that saints as well as philosophers
1

Opus Majus, p. 476.

A.D. 1o60--1518.]

Roger Bacon.

277

had fallen into error, that Augustine and Jerome had to
retract at one time what they held at another, and that
Paul resisted Peter because he was to be blamed; and
these statements were put forth, .not in a cautious and
guarded manner, but so as to appear very offensive to
many Romish theologians. 1
He nowhere repudiates Church authority, indeed, he
speaks of it as proceeding from God; but he opposes
"false and arrogant authority, springing from thirst of
power and the ignorance of the multitude." Of the
Fathers, as of philosophers, he says, "They have not
only permitted us and advised us to change what is
humanly imperfect, but have set the example of doing
so with their own teachings. Had they lived until now,
they would have improved and changed much more." 2
Bacon's intimacy with Robert Grosset~te, Bishop
of Lincoln, has been often noticed. The fact, however,
is disputed by some ; but it is difficult to understand
how the belief of .such a friendship could have got
abroad as it did, if there had been no foundation
for it ; besides, there seems nothing improbable in the
fellowship of two such inquisitive minds, two such
independent persons ; and of the renowned bishop, the
friar speaks with profound respect. 3 Grossett'.lte was,
indeed, more practical than speculative, more of a
churchman than a theologian or a philosopher ; but he
took the patriotic and what may be called the liberal
side in the ecclesiastical politics of his day, an_d resisted
decidedly the encroachments of the papal see upon the
rights and privileges of the English Church. Though
1
3

Opus Majus, p. 10.
Robertson, Church Hist.,
Bacon's Minor Works.

2
VI.

Herzog, art. "Bacon."
476. He cites as authority

278

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV,

Bacon, as a Franciscan, and therefore, by the rules of his
order, an obedient servant of the Pope, was pledged
to the maintenance of Romish claims, yet it is quite·
possible, looking at the independence of his mind and
character, that he had sympathies with such a man as
Grossetete in his opinions on contemporary ecclesiastical
questions. The schoolmen showed wonderful ingenuity
in reconciling what might appear to_ us glaring inco_nsistencies ; and one would not wonder to find Friar Roger
agreeing with Bishop Robert, and at the same time contending that his views were in perfect harmony with the
obligations of his order; just as, no doubt, he had a way
of reconciling what he said about the Saints, the Fathers,
and the Apostle Peter with a perfect! y orthodox submission
to the authority of the Church and the Bishop of Rome. 1
Another man of singular character, and of great
original genius, appeared in the middle of the thirteenth ·
century, who, on account of some peculiarity in his
theological views, demands our notice. RAYMOND LULLY
(A.D. 1234-1315), a native of Majorca, was a Franciscan
friar, and over his name many brethren of his order have
fought earnest battles with their rivals the Dominicansthe former maintaining that he deserves canonization, the
latter regarding him as a heretic and magician.
In early life the victim of strong passions, he afterwards became distinguished for pious affections and
missionary zeal; for he visited Cyprus, Armenia, and
North Africa, with the design of spreading the gospel.
At the same time he manifested great activity of mind
in the study of theological subjects, chiefly with a view-to
1 I have here introduced some passages from a volume recently
published by the Religi~us Tract Society, entitled vVorthies of
Science.
·

A.D:

106o-1518.]

Raymond Lully.

2 79

the conversion of Mohammedans. He had much to say
of the great art (Ars Magna), as he called it, described
as "a mechanical logic calculated to solve all questions
without any study or reflection cm the part of him who
should use it." 1 It seems to have been intended to do
the sort of work in philosophy which a calculating
machine is meant for in arithmetic-how, after having
looked into the best explanations, I am totally unable
to understand. Hence by some the name of Raymon:!
Lully is looked upon as synonymous with absurdity; but
on closely considering what he taught, we shall find that
suâ&#x201A;Źh treatment is unjust. Ueberweg speaks of him with
no great favour, and Tennemann has little to say on his
behalf; but N eander, with characteristic candour and
patience, alludes to him again and again, and brings out
his opinions in a manner very intelligible. Lully laid
down as a postulate, " If thou believest not, thou canst
not understand "-in this respect resembling Anselm,
and then urged, what is plain enough, that to attain
to faith we must get rid of prejudice. Faith is not a
natural impossibility, because the minds of believers and
unbelievers are essentially the same. Knowledge and
faith are harmonious, and God is the object and satisfaction of both. 2 The end for which minds have been
created is that with all their powers they may refer themselves to God. 3 But an absolute knowledge of the
Almighty is impossible; so also is an absolute knowledge
of the human soul. Faith in revelation stands with
firm foot on solid ground ; reason can only soar upwards
on her wings to higher objects ; 4 but after all reason
and faith help one another, and between them may be
1
2

Tenneman's Manual, p. 250.
Neander, Clt. Hist., vol. VIII. 195.

3

Ibid. 197.

4

IbU. 193.

Scholastic Divinity.

280

[PART IV.

harmony and good-will. These are some of the elementary
principles which Raymond_ lays down. Then, entering
upon mysterious themes, he speaks of God the Father
as the principle of all existence, of God the Son as the
medium of all existence, and of God the Holy Ghost as
the end of all existence. 1 Treading ground familiar to us
now-a-days in controversy respecting miracles, he refers
those who refuse to admit anything supernatural to the
creation of the world as the greatest of all Divine marvels.2 Like Thomas Aquinas, he distinguishes between
what subsists in God Himself and what is manifested
in temporal evolutions, employing a distinction between
mediate and immediate agency to explain the doctrine
of Divine predestination. Predestination with this theologian is founded on foresight ; the salvation of Peter
and the perdition of Judas being the result of their own
conduct. Neither predestination nor foreknowledge, he
Âˇasserts, can carry with them any constraint. 3 He ventures
to speculate on the incarnation of the Eternal Word as
essential to the perfection of the universe as well as to
the salvation of man ; and here again this medicevalist
treads on modern ground. 4 He describes faith as a
Divine gift; but how it stands related to justification does
not appear from Neander's account of Lully's writings. 5
N eander adds that "the works of Raymond Lully are rich
in ethical matter, particularly his work on the contemplation of God." 6
THOMAS BRADW ARDINE, Archbishop of Canterbury
(A.D. 1290-1349), was a very different man from Duns
Scotus and from Raymond Lully, and wrote a book
intended to correct the Pelagian tendencies of the
1 Neander, vol. vm. 233.
2 Ibid. 244.
3 Ibid. 257.
4

Ibid. 292.

5

Ibid. 297.

6

Ibzd. 307.

Bradwardine.

A.D. 1000-1518.]

281

Scotists; it is entitled, De Causd Dei contra Pelagium.
Bradwardine was a mathematician, and his skill in
applying mathematical forms of reasoning to a theological controversy has called forth the admiration of
several critics. He liked to deal with principles, hypotheses, and corollaries, but then he could also declaim
with considerable eloquence:Âˇ and sometimes his meditations become devout colloquies between the soul and
God, so as to remind the reader of Augustine's Confessions. Bradwardine complains of contemporary theologians, saying that eight or nine hundred prophets of Baal
might be reckoned against one servant of Jehovah ; 1 and
that the whole world was engaged in following Pelagian
errors. In his work he reas~ms out the perfections of the
Almighty on abstract a priori grounds, and deduces
eternity, unchangeableness, immensity, and other infinite
attributes as necessary consequences flowing from the
true conception of God. In the course of his treatise,
when he enters on subjects immediately relating to
Pelagianism, he expresses many devout sentiments of a
decidedly evangelical cast, contending most earnestly
against the dogma of human merit, and ascribing all
goodness in man to the operations of Divine grace, after
such a manner as to dig down to the foundations of the
favourite scholastic distinction between the merit of condignity and the merit of congruity. He did not repudiate
all idea of merit, nor did he repudiate all idea of liberty,
but he subordinated both to the supreme grace and
power of God, to which he held his ideas of merit and
liberty to be by no means repugnant. 2 His maxim was
that human freedom is conditioned by Divine necessity,
1

2

Pref. to De Causd.
Lib. II, 2 ; lib, III, c.

I.

Scholastic Divinity.

282

[PART IV.

The will of God leads, the will of man follows. He
excluded the common distinction between foreknow- Âˇ
ledge and predestination, and regarded foreknowledge
as identical with, or as necessarily included in, predestination. To foreknow anything without predestinating it,
he argues, would be inconsistent with the Divine perfection and the Divine independence. 1 Sometimes his
arguments are characteristically scholastic. To act, he
says, is more than to be; and as no creature can exist
without God, so no creature can act without God. God
is the cause of existence and of activity. 2 He pushes
this idea of Divine causality to the greatest length, and
in one of his corollaries says that nothing inferior, only
that which is superior,-namely, the will of God,-is
a necessary antecedent ; and things which are, become
what they are from a certain necessity naturally preceding them. From his one-sided corollary other one-sided
corollaries of a most perilous description might be easily
drawn; and this is one of the great defects of the good
man's teaching. The strong predestinarian flavour of
the whole work goes beyond the taste of most modern
Calvinists.
It would seem, from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, that
metaphysical arguments touching freedom and necessity
were not unknown beyond the circle of the schools.
Points of this kind were discussed in the parliamentary
armies during the civil wars, and equally difficult controversies were agitated in the market-place and street
corners of Constantinople in the time of the Gregorys.
So likewise, at an intermediate period, a company Âˇof
pilgrims on the way to Thomas Becket's shrine might
hear, in the midst of a familiar apologue on the folly of
1

Lib.

l.C,

15.

2

Lib. I. c. 4Âˇ

A.D. 1060-1518.]

Willz'am of Occam.

listening to flatterers, a reference to Archbishop Bradwardine's speculations :
" Whether that Goddes worthy foreweting
Straineth me needly for to doe a thing,Or elles if free choice be graunted me
To do that same thing, or do it nought,
Though God forewot it, er that it was wrought ;
Or if his weting streineth never a dele
But by necessitie -condicionele." 1
WILLIAM OF OCCAM (died A.D. 1347) marks the commencement of the fourth period in the history of scholasticism. He was a Franciscan, and a theological disciple
of Duns Scotus, and proved the most formidable antagonist of realism which it had ever been the lot of that
philosophy to encounter. Catching the spirit of energetic
thought, free inquiry, and bold reform which in so many
ways swept over Europe in' the fourteenth century, he
attacked the metaphysical system which claimed a real
existence for universal ideas. Not satisfied with any
modified theory, he carried his assault beyond all outworks into the citadel itself, and demanded the surrender
of the whole system of realistic belief which preceding
schoolmen had laboriously built up. He denied that
ideas had any existence whatever except in the human
understanding, which contemplated them under the form
of words, basing his denial upon these grounds-that
universal ideas are first unnecessary, and secondly
absurd ; his distinctive arguments displaying ingenious
exercises of the logical faculty. He was stronger on
the negative than on the positive side of his undertaking,
and seems to have failed in working out a theory of
1

Chaucer, The Nun's Priest's Tale.

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

intellectual generalization ; but he made such. an ineffaceable mark as the opponent of realism, that by
common consent he bears the name of N omiqalist.
He said the universal exists as a representation in the
human mind; but outside of the mind it is only a word
or a sign, conventionally pointing to general resemblances.
If, on the one hand, nominalism swept clean away from
off the floor of human thought a great deal of rubbish
piled up there in the form of realism, it, on the other
hand, by turning so much attention to mere words,
brought into play an enormous amount of logomachy.
The epoch of victorious nominalism was also that of
verbal subtleties carried to the most frivolous and useless
extent; and some of the ludicrous stories told about
scholasticism belong to that page of its history. It was
then in a state of decline, sinking into the imbecility of
old age. Nor can pure nominalism appear to patient
and persevedng thinkers anything like a satisfactory
explanation of the phenomena of human thought in
connection with the material and spiritual universe,
as created by the infinite and eternal Mind, in which
there must have ever been ideas, types, or forms whatever we please to call them-of all. the classes of
individual existence.
Occam applied his nominalistic theory to theological
studies. He carried up his idea of individualism into his
conception of the Divine nature, saying that the knowledge which God has of things is a knowledge of concrete
individual objects, since they alone really exist-a conclusion which presents insuperable difficulties. Respecting
the human will and the origin of moral distinctions,
Occam followed Duns Scotus, maintaining that the
former is absolutely free, and that the latter spring from

A.D. 1060-1518.]

William of Occam.

285

the Divine will. A belief in the existence of God he
regarded as capable of rational proof; but in this he
deviated from the principle which was the guiding light
of his theology. Philosophy he' handed over to reason.
Divinity he relegated wholly to revelation. The doctrine
of the Trinity and its related truths he considered to be
beyond the sphere of human judgment. They were
subjects for faith, and authority for them was to be
sought in the Bible and in Church traditions.
He
made a formal separation between science and religion,
so that it may be said he reached and laid his hand upon
what had been only distantly approached before - a
severance between philosophy and theology. Such a
severance had been attempted again and again, and as
resolutely resisted by the leaders of religious thought; but
now came one who boldly set his foot upon a line of
demarcation, pronouncing one side human, and the other
Divine. That line he drew differently from what it had
been drawn before, wheq endeavours were made after
some distinct boundary lines. Occam circumscribed the
theological subjects of rational investigation. True
conceptions of the character of God, he thought, could
be based only on Divine teaching ; and to the same
source he referred all correct notions of Christianity.
Roger Bacon and others had aimed 'at a union between
all science and _all religion, as some thinkers at the present
day strive to bring all forms of knowledge into harmony.
To this proceeding Occam was opposed. He took the
lead in inculcating the lesson now also . common, that
human inquiry and Divine revelation have to do with
different provinces - that the one is the domain of
reason, the other of faith. Some of Occam's followers
represented the two spheres of thought as so different

286

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART IV.

that a proposition might be philosophically true and
theologically false. 1
.
In the controversy between the Thomists and Scotists,
as we have seen, theological questions were complicated
with disputes purely personal. The rivalry of mendicant
orders made a strife about religious doctrines all the
more bitter. Now in the case of the nominalist struggle,
led on by Occam, with the old realists, there arose a new
and different complication: divinity was plunged into the
gulf of politics. In the fourteenth century the Papacy
and the Empire were at war with each other. Guelphs
and Ghibellines were mortal foes.
Occam attached
himself to the Ghibellines. He thus became identified
with the cause of prince and people against the cause of
Papacy and Rome; in fact he took a side with Philip le
Bel against Boniface VIII., with Louis of Bavaria against
John XXII. The banner of civil liberty was raised on
the one hand, that of submission to ecclesiastical authority on the other. Nominalist doctrines thus came to be
patronized by Imperialists; realistic opinions remained
with adherents ofÂˇthe Pontiffs.
Very different from William Occam was RAYMOND
DE SEB0NDE. Respecting him, we learn from Tennemann
that he taught at Toulouse about A.D. 1436. In his Liber
Creaturarum sive Natur12 he asserted that there are two
books given by God to man-the book of nature and the
book of Scripture. The first is contained in the works of
creation, including orders of existence, amongst which
man himself is chief; and the second is given in Holy
Writ to supply the defects of the first, and because m~n
knows not how to read that original record through the
1

blindness of his understanding. The first book, he says,
cannot be falsified, but the second can; nevertheless,
each volume has the same origi!l. Nature is not sufficient without revelation, and no one can read the Divine
wisdom in the open book unless illuminated from God
and cleansed from original sin. The pagan philosphers,
though they 'attained to scientific knowledge, could not
reach the knowledge which leads to eternal life.
Montaigne translated Raymond's work under the title
of Natural Theology, and tells us, in his Essays,1 that his
father a few days before his death lighted on this volume,
and gave it him to translate; and, adds the Frenchman,
"I found the conceits of the author to be excellent, the
contexture of his work well followed, and his project full
of piety." Thus a book written by a nominalist schoolman
of the fifteenth century was thought worthy of a place in
French literature after the revival of letters.
Dugald Stewart, in his preliminary dissertation to
the Encyclopa:dia Britannica, misapprehends the drift of
Sebonde's argument through confiding in Cotton's inaccurate translation of Montaigne.
"The object of
Sebonde's book," remarks Hallam," according to himself,
is to develop those truths as to God and man which
are latent in nature, and through which the latter may
learn everything necessary, and especially may understand Scripture, and Âˇhave an infallible certainty of its
truth." 2
Pausing for a moment, and looking back upon our
review of medi~val times, we are reminded of what
has repeatedly appeared on these pages, namely, that
diffe'rent streams of theological doctrine have flowed
almost, if not quite, uninterruptedly through Christendom
1

B.

II.

c.

12.

2

Introduction to Lit. of Europe,

I.

191.

288

Scholastic Divinity.

[PART

rv.

from the earliest times down to our own. We may call
them, for want of better terms, theÂˇ Philosophical, the
Evangelical, and the Catholic. Very considerable differences have existed in the teachings of those who may
appropriately be included in any one of the classes
denominated after these several forms of opinion. The
Philosophical divines are not all alike, nor are the
Evangelical, nor are the Catholic. Yet each division is
marked by features characteristic and distinctive. A
certain kinship may be traced between the ante-Nicene
Fathers, Clement and Origen, and the medi;eval metaphysicians, Erigena and Abelard. So likewise between
Augustine and Bradwardine ; whilst Aquinas, as a representative advocate of Church authority, comes in
obvious succession to Iren;eus. The Reformation on the
one hand, the Council of Trent on the other, did not
destroy, did not interrupt, the operation of such theological tendencies. They are active still, as they ever
were, and so far the medi;eval age is repeating itself in
the nineteenth century.

CHAPTER V.
POPULAR THEOLOGY.

I

T is not to be supposed that the refinements and sub-

tleties of thought, indicated imperfectly in these pages,
had much hold, except at particular junctures, upon the
minds of men in general, if indeed they were apprehended
by them at all. But in the middle ages, as ever, there
existed, outside the schools, a kind of theology which
interested the mass of the people, fastened on their
convictions, mingled with their experiences, and, to a
great extent, shaped their lives. What was it ? Where
is it to be found? Not in the folios of Aquinas and
Duns Scotus, but in popular sermons, in ecclesiastical art,
which covered Europe, and in other productions which
we proceed to notice.
I. Preaching was subordinate to liturgies and the
service of song. In Charlemagne's time few clergymen
were capable of informing their flocks on religious
subjects, and he commissioned Paulus Diaconus, A.D.
782, to collect homilies out of the writings of the Fathers
to be read to the people, or to be studied as models
of popular instruction. Discourses had been mostly
delivered in Latin, but the great father and founder of
European civilization enjoined the use of the vernacular
in addresses from the pulpit. For the most part, productions of this kind were very poor; but justice has not
been done to some of them. To go back beyond the
time of Charlemagne, there was a preacher in the

u

Popular Theology.

[PART IV,

seventh century, Eligius, Bishop of Noyon, whom Maclaine, Dr. Robertson, and others have represented as
teaching people that nothing else was necessary to make
a man a Christian than that he should go to church, and
repeat the Creed and the Lord's Prayer; but any one
who will take the trouble to read the sermon they refer
to, as it is found in D'Achery's Spicilegium,1 will discover
that this medi~val preacher was by no means so bad as
that. " Beloved, it will not profit you, " he said, " to
receive the Christian name if you do not cultivate Christian practice. Christian profession avails a man only
when he preserves in his mind and exemplifies in his
conduct the precepts of Christ; that is, who does not
steal, nor bear false witness, nor tell falsehoods, nor
commit adultery, nor hate any man, but loves all even as
himself; who does not render evil to his enemies, but
rather prays for them ; who does not excite strife, but, on
the contrary, promotes peace." 2 The sermon is lamentably defective as an exposition of religious truth, but it is
not wanting in moral exhortations.
The following extract from the same preacher is still
more decisive : " Have Christ in your heart, and His sign
on your brow. The sign of Christ is a great thing-the
cross of Christ ; but it only avails those who keep the
commandments of Christ. Let no man deceive you; he
who doeth righteousness is righteous, he who committeth
sin is of the devil; and no sin, whether adultery, theft, or
lying, is committed without the co.-operation of the devil.
Let no man deceive himself; he who hateth one man in
this world loses all that he offers to God in good works ;
1 There has been much controversy about this sermon. See Dr.
Reid's edit. of Mosheim, p. 251, note by the Editor.
2 Spicil., tom. II. p. 87.

A.D. 1060-1518.]

Sermons.

for the apostle does not lie when he addresses to us
those fearful words ( I John ii. 9; iii. I 5) : ' Whosoever
hateth his brother is a murderer,' and' is in darkness.' By
brethren we must here understand every man, for in
Christ we are all brethren. Despise not, therefore, the
poor, or the bondman ; perhaps he is better before God
than thou art.
Strive that ye may be separated
from the devil, and united to God who has redeemed
.you. Let the heathen wonder at your conduct; and
even if they ridicule your Christian life, let not that
disquiet you ; they will have to render an account to
God. Wherever ye may be, be mindful of Christ in
your intercourse, for He says, 'Where two or three are
gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst
of them.'" 1
Down to the beginning of the thirteenth century two
kinds of preaching are noticeable, called declaring and
postillating. The first produced an essay or oration on
some particular subject, with no text prefixed, but only
an announcement of the theme. The second resulted in
expositions or running comments on a paragraph of Holy
Scripture. The practice, still almost universal, of discoursing on some single verse, or some few verses, is said
to have begun about the thirteenth century; and the divisions and subdivisions of a discourse so introduced and
suggested originated in scholastic methods of theological
treatment. Roger Bacon condemned the custom. " The
greater part of our prelates having but little knowledge
in divinity, and having been little used to preaching in
their youth, when they become bishops, and are some1 N eander's Denkwurdigkeiten aus der Geschichte des chn'stlichen Lebens, translated in part under the title of Light in th; Dark
Places, p. 108.

U 2

Popular Theology.

292

[PART IV.

times obliged to preach, are under a necessity of begging
and borrowing the sermons of certain novices who have
invented a new way of preaching by endless divisions
and quibblings ; in which there is neither sublimity of
style nor depth of wisdom, but much childish trifling
and folly unsuitable to the dignity of the pulpit. May
God banish this conceited and artificial way of preaching
out of His Church, for it will never do any good, nor
elevate the hearts of the hearers to anything that is great
or excellent." 1
ANTONY OF PADUA, who died A.D. 1231, and who
sympathized with the famous Francis of Assisi in his love
for the animal creation, was one of the most popular
preachers of his age. Churches were thronged at daybreak, shops were closed, highways were forsaken, and the
eloquent monk had to address immense multitudes in the
open air. Some of his congregations were reckoned at the
number of 30,000 ; and wonderful effects were attributed
to his oratory. It was certainly of a singular description,
mystical and allegorical in the extreme, as appears from
an example in which the preacher compares moral
excellences to the different parts of a vessel. 2 Compassion he calls the sail; brotherly love the rudder; the
mercy of God the anchor; humility the starboard side.
Then he speaks of eight rowers, adding, " By these eight,
if the ship be prepared and adorned, it will be borne
onwards in a right course to the benediction of the
eternal heritage, and will attain the harbour of rest."
He allegorizes the fleet of Solomon after the following fashion: "This is the fleet of Solomon, which through
the sea of this world goes to Tarshish, that is, to those
1 Wood's
2

who search out the joy of this world that they may rejoice
in it. By the gold is set forth human wisdom; by the
silver, philosophic wisdom ; by the elephants' teeth, doctors who masticate that strong food, the Word of God, for
little ones ; by the apes that imitate human actions, but
live like beasts, we understand those who have come from
among the Gentiles to the faith, and seem to hold it in
word, but deny it in deed ; by the peacocks, whose flesh
if it be dried is said to remain imperishable, and who are
vested with beautiful feathers, are signified perfect men
who are so. tried by the fire of tribulation that they are
decorated and painted with various virtues. These are
brought from Tarshish, that is, from the various waves of
the sea of this world, by the preachers of the Church to
the true Solomon, Jesus Christ." 1
Most of Antony's illustrations are far-fetched, and
his style is abrupt and confused, owing, perhaps, to the
circumstance that we possess only notes rather than
copies of his discourses. He at times distinctly denotes
the divisions of his sermons, quite in consonance with later
custom ; and in preaching on the Syrophenician woman
he considers,first, the gracious visitation of the Physician,
"Jesus went forth ; " secondly, the devout supplication of
the petitioner, "Have mercy on me, 0 Lord;" thirdly,
the perfect restoration of the patient, " Be it unto thee as
thou wilt."
JOHN BONA VENTUR'./\, whom we shall meet with again,
was another remarkable preacher. A mystical divine,
blending with what was theological not a little of transcendental philosophy, he carried an intense allegorical
habit into his popular expositions of Scripture. For
a sermon on Christmas eve he takes for his text,
1

Neale, p. 238.

'
294

Popular Theology.

[PART IV.

"To-morrow, by that time the sun be hot, ye shall have
deliverance," or, as he read it," salvation." The heat of
the sun is the love of Christ, which compelled Him to
become our Saviour; and the fervour of that love is set
forth in four particulars : His incarnation, His giving
Himself in the eucharist, His passion, and His bestowment of the Holy Ghost.
The following passage is taken from what seems to
be another and distinct discourse on Psalm lxxxvi.
17: "Show me a token for good." "A good sign
is the resurrection of Christ ; for it is the sign of His
glory in heaven, the sign of His mercy in the world, the
sign of His victory in hell, the sign of His justice in
judgment. The resurrection, therefore, of Christ is the
sign of His glorification, and of ours by Him ; it carries
the rod of Aaron into the tabernacle of the testimony,
that it may be laid up for a token. Notice how while
the rods of the magicians remained in their dryness, the
rod of Aaron flourished ; " here the preacher confounds
together two distinct miracles : the one which changed the
rod of Aaron, the other which changed the rod of Moses.
-" Whence both himself and ,his children were exalted,"
which Gregory expounds of the resurrection of Christ.
"For the flesh of Christ was dried up at His death; dried
up because of the loss of blood and the giving up of the
ghost. But by the blossom the glory of the rising body
is signified. The Psalm (xxviii. 7, LXX, Vulg.) reads,' My
flesh hath flourished again.' Now Christ might well say,
' I am the flower of the field.' A garden flower is private
property ; a field flower is common to all. Thus ChrisÂˇt
belongs to all. Some, however, say that by the flower of
the field is meant a certain little flower of a deep red colour
which has five leaves, as Christ had five bleeding wounds.

Sermons.

A.D. 1000-1518.]

295

Aaron signifies Christ, the great High Priest. The dry rod
then flourished when the dead flesh of Christ rose again.
And this is the sign of the exaltation of Aaron and his
sons, that is, of Christ and Christians in eternal glory.
The other rods may signify our hearts, which remain
continually in their hardness and dryness. :, Can these
dry bones live?' But in the last day they shall flourish in
beauty through the glory of the resurrection." 1 This
passage is a curious example of the rough, broken,
disjointed style in which the sermons of that day are
jotted down; of the uncritical and incorrect use made
of Scripture ; and of the lawless manner in which the
habit of allegorizing ran riot.
A strange mixture of the doctrine of Divine grace
and the doctrine of human merit pervades these homilies;
and Bonaventura ends the second of them, after a comment on Jonah as a sign to the Ninevites, by saying,
" For as, after the sign given in Jonas, Nineveh was converted by him ; so after the resurrection of Christ the
world, which is signified by Nineveh, was converted by
Him and His apostles. For from that time the world
could truly believe in Him, and hope in Him, because it
heard that He had so mightily risen." 2
ALBERTUS MAGNUS was a preacher as well as a
scholastic divine, and !t is said that amidst his laborious
studies he repeated the whole Psalter every day. He
became Bishop of Ratisbon A.D. 1260; and some idea of
how he preached in that old city on the Danube may be
gathered from the following odd fragment of a discourse
on the Second Sunday in Lent, upon "Jesus departed
from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon." " Lord Jesus Christ,
Son of David, have mercy on me, for sensuality (the
1

Neale, p.

260.

1

lbid._p.

262.

Popular Theology.

[PART IV.

daughter of my reason) is sore vexed by the devil (of
pleasure, cupidity, and curiosity) ; and though Thou art
not sent to take away trials of faith, but rather to bring
again the sheep which were lost through temptations of
Satan, to the pure thoughts and holy affections of the
house of Israel (the faithful soul that contemplates God),
yet send her away, because she hindereth and crieth after
Thy disciples (that is to say, the virtues), saying, 'Help
me.' And although it is not meet to take the children's
bread (that is, vexation, temptation, correction, and tribulation) and to cast it to the dogs (that is, to the voluptuous, luxurious, and impotent), who bark (that is, murmur
in tribulation), "and bite the stone of pleasure, which
they think to be bread ; give me, 0 Lord, a sinner, like a
humble whelp, to receive ardently and thankfully, as far as
my little power goes, of the crumbs of tribulation which
fall from the table of the passion of my lords (Thy saints),
that my daughter may be set free from the devil of lust." 1
These were all Churchmen of the Catholic type. Let
us now turn to the sermons of ABELARD, the rationalist.
Some may be surprised to find how much he resembled
the former in his preaching. " Whether, therefore, Christ
is spoken of as about to be crowned or about to be
crucified, it is said that He went forth; to signify that
the Jews, who were guilty of so great wickedness against
Him, were given over to reprobation, and that His grace
would now pass to the large extent of the Gentiles, where
the salvation of the cross, and His own exaltation by the
acquisition of many peoples, in the place of the one nation
of the Jews, has stretched itself out. Whence, also, today we rightly go forth to adore the cross in the open
plain, showing mystically that both the glory and the
1

Neale, p. 272, slightly altered.

A.O. 1000-1518.]

Sermons.

297

salvation was departed from the Jews, and had dilated
itself among the Gentiles. But in that we afterwards
returned to the place whence we had set forth, we signify
that in the end of the world the grace of God will return
to the Jews; namely, when, by the preaching of Enoch
and Elijah, they shall be converted to Him. Whence
the apostle : ' I would not, brethren, that ye should be
ignorant of this mystery, that blindness in part is happened unto Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles shall
be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved.' Whence
the place itself of Calvary, where the Lord was crucified,
is now,as we know, contained in the city, whereas formerly
it was without the walls. 'The crown wherewith His
mother crowned Him in the day of His espousals, and in
the day of the gladness of His heart.' For thus kings
are wont to exhibit their glory when they betroth queens
to themselves, and celebrate the solemnities of their
nuptials. Now the day of the Lord's crucifixion was, as
it were, the day of His betrothal ; because it was then
that He associated the Church to Himself as His bride,
and on the same day descended into hell, and setting free
the souls of the faithful, accomplished in them that which
He had promised to the thief: 'Verily I say unto thee,
To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.'" 1
We must add an example of the clearer strain of
teaching adopted by BERNARD. He remarks," All our
sufferings and chastisements are caused by our natural
will, and this being annihilated, suffering and chastisement
must be annihilated ~ith it. Self-will is unbounded in
its strivings-yea, the whole world would not suffice for it;
it would extinguish the very being of God, inasmuch as
it includes a wish that He were not wise, and holy, and
1 Neale, p. 135.

Popular Theology.

[PART IV.

Almighty, so that He might not have the power or the
inclination to see or punish sin." Again, " It is fit thou
shouldst believe that thy sins can only be blotted out by
Him against whom alone thou hast sinned, a-nd who is
exalted above all evil ; but yet to this thou must add the
special belief that thine own particular sins are forgiven
through Him, and that is the witness of the Holy Ghost
in thine heart; and thou must also needs have the testimony of the Holy Ghost in thine heart touching eternal
life, that thou shalt through Divine grace attain to the
same." Once more, "There is no sin greater than to
despair of the forgiveness of sin, for God is kind and
merciful, plenteous in mercy, ready to forgive.
His
very nature is goodness, His property is to have mercy ;
for He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and
whom He will He hardeneth. But mercy He draws from
His own nature ; condemnation is a work to which we
in a measure compel Him." 1
1 Neander's Life ofSt. Bernard, translated by M. Wrench, p. 247.
Some new examples of medireval preaching have just been published
in the Life, Letters, and Sermons of Herbert de Losinga, Bishop of
Norwich, already mentioned. Edited by Dr. Goulburn and H.
Symonds.
Neale, in his vol. on Medi(l!val Preaching, says (p. xxiv. of the
Introduction), "One thing seems next to certain, that the great
preachers of those times, whenever they did use the vernacular
language, spoke in it extempore; for who would take the trouble of
committing his thoughts to a dialect so barbarous that perhaps it
could not be written with precision, and so fluctuating that it was
certain to be unintelligible within half a century? The sermones ad
populum of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, then, must either
have been translated into Latin by some of the disciples of the author
from their remembrance of what he had actually spoken, or by the
writer himself from his recollection of the general scope and aim of
the discourse. Those sermons which were addressed ad clerum,
or to members of a monastery, would be spoken in Latin, no doubt."

A.D. 1060-1518.]

Art.

299

2. The popular theology of these times receives illustration from art as well as from pulpit discourses. The
revival of art in the twelfth and following centuries
indicated the religious excitement of the times, and
expressed forms into which thoughts thus produced in .
the public mind were moulded and fashioned.
An
immense number of churches appeared, grand in style,
harmonious in proportion, beautiful in detail, and altogether full of imagination and sentiment. Nature was
laid under contribution ; the precious things of heaven,
the precious things of the dew and of the deep, the
precious fruits brought forth by the sun, the precious
things put forth by the moon, the chief things of the
ancient mountains and the lasting hills, were types
according to which men worked in rude ways and with
childlike wonder. History and fable, traditionary story
and legendary verse, dreams of monsters and dragons
and all unnatural things, lent their aid for the stimulation
and guidance of curious and quaint craftsmen.
Sermons of all kinds were composed in stone. Cruciform cathedrals, pointed arches, roofs cut in wood, or
carved in stone, had symbolical meanings ; doctrines
were typified here and there in sculpture and painted
glass, sacred history grew out of the columns, and
private biographies were recorded in the sculptured
sleepers with folded hands. On the exterior of Chartres
Cathedral, it is said, .there may be recognized in the
numerous statues the scientific and theological system
expressed in the Speculum Universale of Vincent de
Beauvais.
If the popular religious thought of the period is ever
toÂˇ be understood, then to the relics of art which both
expressed and influenced it there must be applied a kind

300

Popular Theology.

[PART IV.

of study it has not yet received-not that which proceeds
from antiquarian curiosity, or artistic taste, or ignorant
veneration for all that is media:val, but such as pertains
to a keen power of spelling out human thoughts from
signs at which some may laugh, and others sneer.
Illustrations of popular theology may be detected in
many a media:val church on the Continent. A hand
issuing from heaven, or an entire human form with a
papal or imperial crown, represents the Father; the Son
in various modes may frequently be recognized; also the
Holy Ghost under the symbol of a dove. Much of this
betrays the coarse materialistic ideas entertained relative
to the Divine Being-the different crowns, papal in Italy,
imperial in Germany, pointing to the strange complications of religion with politics. Images of the crucified
One called attention to His sufferings, more perhaps with
reference to His physical agony than His atoning sacrifice. The tree of knowledge with the serpent, in contrast
with our Lord's cross, indicated the consequences of the
fall as met by Divine redemption. Statues of the Virgin
in growing numbers, however, manifest how much the
popular mind was occupied by thoughts of her as the
mediatrix between the sinner and his Judge-that Judge
being her Son, to whom she was represented as appealing
in attitudes of pity and intercession. The height to which
saints also were exalted is shown by a parallel in painting
between Christ and St. Francis ; and legendary heroes
and heroines challenged and received the homage of the
multitude. St. Christopher was the friend of travellers,
St. Nicholas of sailors, St. Margaret of mothers; whilst
France invoked St. Denis, Venice St. Mark, and Spain
St. James. Persons and incidents meant originally, it
may be, to shadow forth the gracious attributes of the

A.D. 1060-1518.]

Art and Poetry.

301

Divine Guardian, Helper, Healer, and Patron, came to
be regarded as historical realities, indeed as ever-present
powers. The Campo Santo at Pisa and the walls of
churches in Florence still testifyÂˇto the common conception of future punishment exhibited to the people; yet
sometimes they are so grotesque that they seem adapted
to harden or amuse rather than to alarm or edify. The
division between monkish virtues and those of other
men met the worshipper as he walked into church or
chapel; and he saw chastity, obedience, and poverty
canonized with special glory in connection with monastic
orders, whilst the so-called theological and cardinal
virtues were distributed over the walks of common life.
It was a popular conviction that there existed two kinds
of moral excellence-one for the clergy, another for the
laity; and so whilst heretics were burnt for disturbing
the Church by differences of opinion, the Church was
rent in twain by its doctors and disciples through setting
up distinct standards of Christian morality.
3. Poetry as well as art illustrates popular medi~val
theology. There is one poem above all others belonging
to the time now under review which materially helps us
to conceive of popular religious opinion, at least amongst
Italians-Dante's Divina Commedia. Whatever might be
the chief design of the Tuscan bard-whether or not to
veil ecclesiastical and political opinions under the magnificent imagery his genius had at command-it is quite
clear that he indicates certain theological ideas which
were present to his mind. His favourite teachers were
St. Augustine, St. Gregory, St. Anselm, St. Bernard,
Peter Lombard, the good brother St. Thomas (Il buono
fra Tommaso), 1 and the popular mystic St. Bonaventura.
1

This expression occurs in the Convito,

IV.

30.

302

Popular Theology.

[PART IV.

At the same time, it is remarkable that he passes
over in absolute silence Raymond Lully, Duns Scotus,
William Occam, and others suspected by orthodox
divines as being tainted with heresy. 1 In the Vision of
Hell there are nine circles, the eighth divided into ten
gulfs, in the ninth of which schismatics and sources of
division appear. 2 In harmony with this, Dante's cantos
in the Vision of Paradise are imbued with the Catholic
faith of the period. Christ is seen triumphant in heaven.
As He ascends He is followed by His virgin mother.
She is glorified above saints and angels. The Divine
essence is revealed to the celestial hierarchies. From
God's presence flows the river of light. The souls of the
blessed under the Old and New Testament are on thrones.
The fall of Adam is repaired by redemption through
Christ. Faith, charity, grace, merit are set forth according to the doctrines of orthodox schoolmen. Finally, St.
Bernard supplicates the Virgin Mary on behalf of Dante.
The whole poem shows what a large place was occupied
in his mind by thoughts of a future existence : hell,
purgatory, heaven, these absorb his attention and swallow
up what he paints of earth and time ; men and things are
depicted in relation to the infinite future-to it they
point, there they find their issues. Yet with all this
-and it is most remarkable-this orthodox Catholic is
an inveterate anti-papist. He is opposed to Rome and
the existing successors of St. Peter. He speaks of
"turning the shepherd to a wolf," and adds" For this,
The gospel and great teachers laid aside,
1 Dante et la Philosophie Catholique, par M. A. F. Ozanam,
2 Hell, canto XXVIII.
p. 215.

A.D. 1o60--1518.]

Poetry.

The Decretals, as their stuft margins show,
Are the sole study. Pope and Cardinals,
Intent on these, ne'er journey but in thought
To Nazareth, where Gabriel o:ped his wings.
Yet it may chance, ere long, the Vatican, 1
And other most selected parts of Rome,
That are the grave of Peter's soldiery,
Shall be delivered from the adulterous bond." 2

In the Divina Commedia we have the theology, and
with it the ecclesiastical convictions, of the most distinguished layman of his age. It is going too far to say,
as Villemain does, that Dante puts into the mouth of
Bonaventura an explication of the subtle difficulties of
theology. 3 Rather it may be said that, without going
into minute details of media!val controversy, the poet
gives a general layman-like view of his own religious
beliefs; and they are of the kind we have intimated.
Dante appears as a believer in dogmatic orthodoxy as
taught by the Church ; and at the same time he appears
as a determined anti-papist; and in this respect, we are
persuaded, he may be justly looked upon as representing
a large class in his own day-men of culture and
thoughtfulness, public spirit and political sympathies.
An orthodox Ghibelline, strong in religious opinion,
equally strong in political purpose, such was Dante; and
such was many and many an Italian.
4. Yet another source of information touching the
popular theology of the middle ages may be found in
the Latin hymns of the Church. Every one knows Dies
irm, dies ilia, and has felt the grandeur and pathos breathed
1 Perhaps he refers to the death of Boniface vnr., or, as some
think, to the transfer of the court from Rome to Avignon.
2 Paradiso, canz. IX. 128-137. (Cary's Trans.)
3 Cours de Litt. Franraise, I. 352.

Popular Theology.

LPART IV,

throughout those unparalleled metrical lines.
They
sprung out of the excitement relative to the approaching
end of the world. The hymn may be found in no less
than forty-three different versions, a proof of its universal
adaptation; 1 and it rung in the dying ears of Goethe
like " blow following blow of the hammer on the anvil;" a
proof of its extraordinary power on minds of sensibility.
This hymn, sung or heard by multitudes who knew
enough of Church Latin to understand it, must have
awakened thoughts plaintive, solemn, devout, and singularly free from that alloy of superstition and error
so common in medi~val religious literature. . Here we
catch a glimpse of the better side of the popular religion;
and the glimpse becomes still more satisfactory when we
forn to other hymns, such as Salve mundi salutare:
Deus homo Rex ca:lorum: and Urbs beata Hierusalem:
not to mention others.
They relieve the mind of
the student who has been depressed by contemplating medi~val superstitions.
Hussite hymns, and the
hymns of the Bohemian brethren, sung at great festivals
and at special ecclesiastical solemnities, were many of
them excellent, and must have ministered to the spirit
of devotion; but some of the early German hymns
"were too frequently destitute of all religious fervour
or poetic value." Minne-songs, adapted, as one might
say, to religious worship, were often little better than
burlesques. 2 Shadows as well as lights fall upon our
path as we follow the interesting and instructive story
of ancient hymnology.
5. Another source of illustration may be introduced,
different from the rest, on that account all the more
1
2

pertinent, because it serves to show the mixed, heterogeneous, indeed bizarre character of the mediceval popular
theology. Vincent of Beauvais wrote, as we have mentioned, the Universal Mirror, inÂˇ three parts : the first
natural, touching the works of creation ; the second doctrinal, expounding the truths of religion in connection with
a resume of the existing sciences ; and the third historical,
reciting various events in the annals of the world. It is
described as a work calculated to meet the wants of laymen ; and that it did so was its distinguishing merit, for it
brought together the scattered knowledge of the day, and
bound it up with the cords of theological belief as then
held in the predominant Church. 1 It is not wandering
away from our subject further to cite the strange and startling romances of the day, such as The Court of Paradise,
in which angels, patriarchs, martyrs, virgins, and others
are described as assembled before God the Father, chanting the praises of love ; while Jesus Christ, the Virgin
Mary, and souls delivered from purgatory are introduced
on the occasion. Much of this literature tended to
degrade religion, and to foster a spirit of irreverence,
without improving public morals ; nor should the fact be
overlooked that it also tended to produce feelings hostile
to the clergy, especially the monkish orders. Âˇ At the
same time, other popular works were written of a beneficial tendency, of which one example has been singled
out as worthy of commendation-The Instruction of a
Father to his Son. 2 Allegories also appeared-The Three
Pilgrimages, for example ; in which we find, first, the
pilgrimage to the heavenly Jerusalem, guarded by
angels and a flaming sword ; secondly, the pilgrimage
1
2

of a soul separated from the body, and struggled for by
contending powers, some dragging it downwards to
purgatory and hell, others seeking to lift it to paradise,
which it enters at last ; and thirdly, the pilgrimage of
Jesus Christ, which is in fact the gospel history reduced
to rhyme. A book called Tlze Virtues of a Good Life
seems really to have been a satire on priestly vices; this,
and other satires on men and things in general, evidently
met the public taste. Literature of the kind now noticed
presents a mirror of the strange mixture of licence and
devotion so prevalent at that period.

307

CHAPTER VI.
MYSTICISM.

T

HEOLOGICAL mysticism is a phase of thought which

originates not with the logical faculty, nor in what
is meant by the human understanding; certainly it does
not arise from the operations of common sense, usually
so called. The imagination and the affections are its
birthplace and its home. There it lives, and moves,
and has its being; craving after that which the judgment of the world cannot comprehend ; claiming powers
of intuition and pgre spiritual insight free from the
trammels of dialectic investigation, and turning its
attention to transcendental themes. It has an affinity
for what is mysterious, and it is given to poetical conceptions of Divine things, resembling views caught by
artists through a veil of mist. The beauty of the object
contemplated appears heightened by the golden haze
through which it dawns upon the eye of the soul. There
may be truth, there may be error, in these phases of
thought, but they Âˇare natural to minds of a certain cast
and bent. Such minds have existed in all ages; we meet
them at the scholastic period, when, sometimes openly
fighting against the dialectic method of treatment, and
at other times entering into fellowship with it, they
fixed their thoughts intently upon Divine things.
A mystic element, as we have already seen, appears in
John Erigena ; sometimes it comes out even in Anselm,
not unfrequently in Alexander Hales, ~ftener still in
X2

Mysticism.

[PART IV.

Bernard ; but the representatives of this form of thought
now selected for notice, between A.D. 1097 and 1274, are
Hugo of St. _Victor, Joachim, Amalric of Bena, and
Bonaventura.
I. HUGO OF ST. VICTOR (A.D. 1097-1141) is described as "a man of deep religious experience, the St.
John of his age." He divided the nature of man, after
St. Paul, into three parts - body, soul, and spirit; and
distinguished between the eye of sense, which is perception, the eye of the intellect, which is reason, and
the eye of the spirit, which is intuition. Sin, he said, had
blinded the last, dimmed the second, and left clear only
the first. Faith takes the place of original intuition, and
by it we realize what we cannot behold. It gives a
certainty less than knowledge, but more than opinion,
and enables the heart to apprehi;nd and love God.
Upon this basis rests mystical contemplation, which is a
foretaste of heaven. Hugo followed Anselm in illustrating the doctrine of the Trinity by its supposed resemblance
to human nature. Spirit, wisdom, love, correspond with
the three Divine persons. Also he followed Augustine
in his notions of humanity, striving, however, to unite
human freedom with Divine sovereignty. He distinguished between grace which prevents sin, and grace
which produces goodness, saying that after the fall, grace
operating was needed in addition to grace co-operating.
The essence of original sin was by him resolved into
ignorance and concupiscence ; and ardent love to Christ
was exalted as the germ of all excellence. Where there
is love, he said, there is purity. These ideas of Hugo
are found in the Summa Sententiarum and the De
Sacramentis Fidei. He insisted upon the doctrine of disinterested love, saying, "If thou shouldest think eternal

A.D. 106o-1518.J

Hugo St. Victor and :Joachim.

309

life to be anything else than the supreme good, which
is God Himself, and shouldest serve Him solely with a
view to attain that other object, it would be no perfect
service, no disinterested love." 1
A vein of mysticism appears in all this, but it was
combined with scholastic habits, and was wrought out in
a scholastic form. Dialectics were blended with contemplation, and from imaginative musings, often true,
Hugo drew forth a logical concatenation of results.
Nor did he proscribe the use of science, he called it in
to aid his meditations; and, more intellectual than sensuous, also, with a practical turn in his sentimentalism,
he presents one of the most favourable specimens of
the mystical divine to be found amongst the Churchmen
of the middle ages.
And it may be added, that in this mystic theologian
may be found a return to the old but of late unpopular
notion of a legal transaction with the devil, though he
asserted at the same time the moral significance of our
Lord's death. The notion in reference to Satan is very
misty, and had best be given in his own words : "Christ
therefore by His incarnation paid to the Father man's
debt, and by dying expiated man's guilt, that when He for
man endured a death which He did not owe, man might
justly on His account escape a death which he did owe;
and so the devil could not find any cause for complaint,
because he had no right to domineer over man, and man
was worthy to be delivered." 2
2. JOACHIM (A.D. 1145-1202), Abbot of Corace,
1
De Sacram., lib. II. p. XIII.Âˇc. 8. On Hugo St. Victor see
Herzog, 'Encycl.; Vaughan's Hours with the Mystics; and
N eander' s History, VIII. 247-263.
2 De Sacram., c. 4.
Quoted by Hagenbach, Hist. of Doct., vol.
II. p. 41,

310

Mysticism.

[PART IV.

affords the example of a vigorous mind, driven by
aversion to scholastic methods of inquiry, as well as
drawn by the imaginative and susceptible character of
his own nature, into the depths of mystical speculation.
Moreover, the worldliness of the secular clergy and the
corruption of the monastic orders awakened in him a
strong desire for a different state of things in Christendom
-a feeling in this case, however, not to be confounded
with longings for reform as manifested by sects formed
outside the Church, or by men within it like Claude of
Turin. The Abbot Joachim was to all intents a High
Churchman, opposed to ecclesiastical schism in every
form. His dreams of improvement were steeped in a
mystical spirit, which coloured his views of theology,
history, prophecy, and ecclesiastical politics. These
views were distinctive of the man, and determine the
place he occupies in the annals of religious thought.
What seems to have been lying at Âˇthe basis of his
system was the opinion he held respecting the Trinity.
We have seen at an early period two tendencies at work
respecting the Divine nature-one pointing to the unity,
the o.ther to the distinctions of the Godhead. Peter
Lombard, whilst admitting that there are three persons
in the Divine essence, insisted much upon the unit:? of
that essence, as underlying the distinction. The Master
of the Sentences had laid down the principle that the
Divine essence is in such sort common to the three
persons, that this essence is neither begotten, nor begetting, nor is it proceeding; so that no one should say the
Father begot the essence, nor that the essence begot
the Son. 1 Thus darkening counsel with words without
wisdom, Peter excited the antagonism of Joachim, who,
1 Sententiarum,

lib. I., <list. 5.

A.D. 1o6o-1518,]

'Joachim.

311

increasing the confusion and unprofitableness of the
controversy, contended, that according to this scholastic
theory the essence appeared distinct from the three
persons, that, in fact, a fourth element was attributed to
the Divine nature. If we admit what Peter Lombard
says, Abbot Joachim declared, we must grant four things
in God-the three persons, and the essence distinct from
these three persons. To this, by a metaphysical or
logical refinement illustrative of the thinking common
at that period, he opposed the formula - the three
persons are the same essence, but the same essence is
not the three persons. 1 He seems to have regarded the
Unity as collective and metaphysical, and concentrated
his reflective power, which was very great, upon the
triune distinction, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The
Trinity he saw reflected everywhere. History exhibited
a Trinity. The first state was under the Old Testament,
pertaining to God the Father; the second came under
the New Testament, pertaining to God the Son; the
third under a later period, the last time, belongs to
the Holy Ghost. The working of the Father produced
power, fear, faith ; of the Son, humility, truth, wisdom ;
of the Holy Ghost, love, joy, freedom. The letter- of the
Old Testament was of the Father; the letter of the New
Testament of the Son ; the third dispensation is not of
the letter, but of the Spirit. The first state was slavery,
the second filial service, the third friendship and freedom. Then, passing from general to personal history,
he fixes on the three apostles Peter, Paul, and John as
representative men, and remarkably anticipates interesting meditations upon the peculiarities of each, as pointing in different directions: Peter as a man of simple
1

Dupin, Ecclesias#cal i-Vriters,

XIII.

cent. 54.

312

Mysticism.

[PART IV.

faith, laying foundations ; Paul as a man of knowledge,
building up an edifice of instruction; and John as a man
of love, crowning all with contemplative perfection.
History with Joachim ran into prophecy. A new
creation springing out of the third period was to appear,
the beginning of which might be obscure and contemptible. Secularization was to be succeeded by
spirituality. The Father had come, the Son had come,
and now comes the Holy Ghost. "The Holy Ghost
comes and reposes in our hearts when we taste the
sweetness of His love, so that we break forth into
songs of praise to God, rather than keep silence.
Then will ensue the truce of an Easter jubilee, in which
all mysteries will be laid open, the earth will be full of
the knowledge of the Lord, and it will be scarcely possible any longer to find a man who will dare deny that
Christ is the Son of God. The Spirit will stand forth
free from the veil of the letter. It is the gospel of the
Spirit, the everlasting gospel, for the gospel of the letter
is but temporary." We may catch in this strain, which
rung in many ears six or seven centuries ago, the very
tones which are heard in our times-one day in schools
of mystic piety, another in schools of mystic rationalism.
Both, like Abbot Joachim, dissatisfied with the revelation
of Christianity as it is, are praying or longing for a new
age, a new dispensation. The abbot thought of history
and prophecy under forms derived from his own profession. He deplored existing corruptions and abuses.
Cardinals, legates, courtiers came in for his denunciations.
Rome was Jerusalem and Babylon combined. JerusalemÂˇ
the spiritual power, with which he identified the ideal
papacy-tlzis he revered ; Babylon committing fornication with the kings of the earth-that he abhorreti.

A.D. 1060-1518.]

Amalric.

Asceticism was his delight. The first state of the Church
was of married persons, the second of learned clerks, the
third of contemplative monks and hermits. Again the
idea revived that the end of the world was at hand. The
Lord was coming ; Antichrist, already at Rome, had been
born as a harbinger of the last conflict. So Joachim
told Richard Cceur-de-Lion. " In that case," his Majesty
replied, " Antichrist can be no other than the reigning
pope Clement." The seculars were to perish in a war
with Antichrist ; the true monks were to shine in glory,
the purified papacy was to triumph, and the immediate
agency of the Holy Ghost was to supersede the necessity of human instruction. Ecclesiastical politics were
blended with J oachim's anticipations.
He accused
secular princes of robbing the Church. He regarded
the German empire with abhorrence. He denounced
reliance on secular help. He deplored "the Babylonian
captivity." He said the Pope, in relying on the King of
France, leaned on a broken reed which would pierce his
hand. The Byzantine empire and the Greek Church, of
course he disliked, though he thought a remnant might
be in them, like the severi thousand who did not bow
the knee to Baal. 1
3. AMALRIC OF BENA (died A.D. 1209) also was a
mystic. In him imagination and feeling broke loose
from judgment and common sense, and in an intensely
subjective state of mind he plunged into wild reveries of
pantheism. He is represented, and there is no reason to
1
Neander, vol. VII. pp. 295-31 I ; Robertson, vol. v. pp. 339-345.
There has been controversy respecting the genuine works of
Joachim. Hahn considers Concordia Veteris et Novi Testam.,
Psalterium Decem C/zordarum, and an Exposition of the Apocalypse to be genuine. Other works ascribed to him are spurious or
interpolated.

Mysticism.

[PART IV.

doubt the truth of the representation, as teaching that
God is the end of all things, because all existence flows
back to Him, that in His immutability it may find final
rest; that as one man and another are of the same nature,
so God is the same as the universe, and the universe is the
same as God. 1 To this mystical identification of nature
and God Amalric added an extravagant identification
of believers with Christ, saying that as such they had
actually participated in the sufferings of Christ on the
cross. 2 Literally interpreting the language of St. Paul,
Amalric and others of his class might give a Scripture
colouring to their imaginations; but all sorts of absurdities
1

Hagenbach, Hist. of Doctrines, vol. II. p. 145.
Gerson represents his opinions in the following way: "All things
are God. God is all. The Creator and the creature are the same.
Ideas create and are created. God Himself is the end of all things.
All things return to Him, that in God they may rest immutably and
remain one, undivided and immutable. God is the essence of all
creatures."-De Concordia Metaphysicm cum Logicil, IV. pars II.
p. 826.
Herzog's Cyclopedia (Art. Amalric) thus describes Amalric's
pantheism : "In the Old Testament age God was incarnate
in Abraham ; and Âˇa revelation of justice ii; given in the law. In
the New Testament age the Son was incarnate in Mary; and a
revelation of grace is given mainly in the sacraments." "Now the
Holy Ghost is incarnate, becomes incarnate in every individual,
and all receive salvation, therefore, without the intervention of any
external ceremonies." "As the ceremonial forms of the Old
Testament revelation of the Father had to yield to the New Testament revelation of the Son, so do the external forms of the latter
disappear in the age of the Holy Ghost. The New Testament loses
its validity, the sacraments, all rites and ceremonies, become supei:fluous. The Pope is Antichrist, the Romish Church is Babylon."
Do we not see here a violent reaction against the immense ritualism
which the Church had identified with Christianity?
â&#x20AC;˘ Hagenbach, Hist. of Doctn'nes, vol. II. p. 46.

A.D.

1000-1518.]

Amalric.

may be covered by the injudicious application, or rather
by_ the perversion, of Bible texts; and nothing is more
certain than that common sense is one of the first requisites for a proper understanding of the sacred writings,
Carrying his intense subjectivity into other fields of
thouglit, Amalric confounded heaven and hell with man's
own consciousness to such an extent that the external was denied or ignored ; and under the influence
of an all-absorbing idealism he insisted that paradise is
simply within a man's self, and that hell dwells in one's
heart as the toothache throbs in one's nerves. 1 Amalric,
in A.D. 1207, recanted those of his doctrines which in 1204
had been condemned by the University of Paris. If we
look at the effects of his teaching, so far from abating
the force of our description, they serve to increase it.
For through his disciple, David of Dinanto, and others
imbued with the same spirit, a party was formed in the
thirteenth century called the sect of the Holy Ghost.
They talked of the incarnation of the Spirit in all the
faithful, maintaining that those who possess the true
knowledge no longer need faith and hope, that the resurrection is past, and that renewed souls have entered into
the real heaven. 2 The opposition these people made
to the dominant Church, which they denounced as the
Babylon of the Revelation, would, it is true, be unfavourable to their obtaining a fair hearing, and yet the report
respecting them is such as to leave an impression of its
substantial accuracy.
1 Hagenbach, vol. II. p. 145. It is very important to notice
how in these and other mystical speculations we find anticipated a
good deal of modern thought now deemed so" fresh" as well as
fascinating.
2 Neander, Hist., vol. VIII. p. 210.

Mysticism.

[PART IV.

4. BONAVENTURA, the" seraphic doctor." (A.D. 1221affords another specimen of the mystic class. He
lacked somewhat the sobriety of Hugo, he was untinged
with the pantheism of Amalric, and he must be regarded
as more in harmony than was either of these with the
dogmas and spirit of the medi;:eval Church. His 'credulity, as seen in his Legenda S. Francisci, and his Mariolatry, in writings about the Virgin, are very distressing ;
and it is a relief to turn from these productions to passages
in his Stimulus Amorz's expressive of intense love to
Christ ; it should be added that such love had much to
do with his misguided veneration of Christ's mother.
His mind had a strong affinity for Neoplatonic views,
and he sought to mediate between conflicting opinions,
and to reconcile free will with the predeterminations of
almighty grace. In his ltinerarium Mentis ad Deum
he exhibits union with Deity as the supreme good, and
as the only method of reaching truth and happiness.
Looking upon all knowledge as a Divine manifestation,
and distinguishing between that taught by the external
creation, that revealed by the reflection of the Divine
image in the human soul, and that communicated
immediately from above by the Holy Spirit, he speaks
of those who contemplate God in the first as occupying
the vestibule of the temple ; of those who attain to the
second as entering the holy place ; and of those who
penetrate into the third as reaching the holiest of all,
where rests the ark of the covenant under the wings of
the cherubim. Then he goes on to speak of the points
of view whence one may contemplate the mysteries of
God, and attain to the knowledge of His unity of nature,
and His Trinity of persons-the one involved in the idea
of His essence, the other in the idea of His communicable
1274),

A.D. 1060-1518.]

Bonaventura.

goodness. 1 Thus by an effort of reason, or rather of
mystic imagination, Bonaventura spins by a web of deductions from primary postulates a scheme of theology
in accordance with ancient creeds.' In his Breviloquiumaccording to Baumgarten the best dogmatic compendium
of the middle ages-he states and illustrates these seven
articles : the Trinity of God, the creation of the world,
the corruption of sin, the incarnation of the Word, the
grace of the Spirit, the medicine of the sacraments, and
the finaljudgment. 2
The cast of his piety as well as his theology appears in
his reply, when asked what books he studied. " That,"
pointing to a crucifix, "is the source of all my knowledge. I study only Christ, and Him crucified." He
once said, " If God were to bestow on any one no other
talents besides the grace of loving Him, this alone would
suffice, and would be a rich spiritual treasure. A poor
old woman may love Him more than the most learned
master and doctor of theology."
Leaving these four mystics of the eleventh and two
following centuries, we notice a powerful wave of
mystical excitement rolling over the Teutonic Church
in the fourteenth ; and its tendency was to break down
the traditionalism of the past, and to sweep away certain
principles upon which the ecclesiastical system of the
middle ages had been made to rest.
A prominent and well-known theological teacher of
the fourteenth century was JOHN T AULER (died A.D.
1360), a Dominican of Cologne. ECKART, a member
of the same order in the same place (died A.D. 1329),
preceded and influenced him in his views ; but Eckart
1

was an extreme Neoplatonist, and expressed himself so
as to give the idea that human individuality is to be
absorbed in the ocean of the Divine essence, not making
the Âˇimportant distinction between getting rid of one's
own personality, which is impossible, and getting rid of
the notion of one's own intrinsic merit, which is good and
wise. Tauler stopped short of that wild extreme, yet
dwelt much upon self-annihilation, to be interpreted in a
spiritual sense; and upon the inward and Divine light,
which is enjoyed by souls united to Christ by a living
faith. He loved to think of the Lord as the first-born
amongst many brethren, as communicating Himself to,
and dwelling within, His spiritual kindred, so as still to
be living upon the earth in the persons of His redeemed
people. Self-surrender he regarded as the secret of
religion. United to Christ's humanity in a spirit of selfsurrender, we shall be filled, says Tauler, with Christ's
Divinity, through the richness of His gracious communications to our souls.
It is apparent, on a moment's reflection, that this
kind of sentiment was inconsistent with that dependence on ecclesiastical authority, ecclesiastical orders, and
ecclesiastical ordinances which formed the backbone of
the medi~val Church. Such incipient Quakerism as
Tauler's, if we may so call it, struck at the root of all
priestism by placing the soul in the Divine embrace,
where it receives life direct from God Himself. Of course
all merit in this self-surrender was repudiated. To lie
still in the celestial arms, which is the highest act of
human volition, could have in it no more intrinsic holiness
than can be found in a block or a stone. Such an idea
was logically incompatible with the scholastic dogma of
merit, either of condignity or of congruity. Of more

A.D. 1o6o-1518.]

Ruysbroek, Wessel.

than one of Tauler's mystical ideas may it be said that
it "was the ark of an unconscious Protestantism." By
his faithful preaching he produced surprising effect in
the cities of Cologne and Strasburg, not only gathering
excited crowds by the witchery of his German eloquence,
but by the loving proclamation of spiritual truths folding
many of Christ's sheep. 1
JOHN RUYSBROEK (died A.D. 1381) followed in the
wake of the illustrious German, and wrote books in the
Flemish language, which were extensively circulated.
" They were characterized by thorough knowledge of
the spiritual wants and aberrations of the age.
He
strove to wake afresh the consciousness of individual
fellowship with God, in opposition to the modes of
thought which prompted men to lean for help on outward union with the Church." 2 The character of his
theology is indicated by the titles of some of his works :
Summary of the Spiritual Life, The Mirror of Salvation,
The Seven Guards of the Spiritual School, The Seven
Degrees of Love, The Spiritual Nuptials.
JOHN WESSEL of Groningen (A.D. 1429-1489) in
rare measure "combined accomplishments so diverse
as scholastic dialectics, mystical speculation, and
thoroughly classical training." 3 He is described as
a theologian who closely followed the great Augustine;
but he went further than his master, and so far
anticipated Luther, that Luther said, " If I had read
Wessel before I began, my opponents would have
imagined that Luther had derived everything from
1 See Tauler's sermons, translated by Miss Winkworth, and
Vaughan's Hours with the Mystics, vol. I. pp. 232, 314-3242 Hardwick's Middle Age, p. 381; Vaughan, vol. I. p. 2548 Kurtz, History of the Church, vol. I. p. 478.

Mysticism.

320

[PART IV.

Wessel, so entirely do we two agree in spirit." Gieseler
gives a number of quotations from John Wessel, which
support and illustrate this statement of the great reformer.1
The mystic element, freed from habits of scholastic
thought, yet not assailing the authority of tradition,
appears further in that remarkable book the Theologia
Germanica, also praised by Luther. The intense piety
breathed throughout its pages, what it says about the
hatred of sin, aspirations after holiness, the renunciation
of self-dependence, and the constant recognition of the
union of the soul with Christ as the only way of salvation,-a conspicuous feature of the book,-must awaken
sympathy in devout minds; but most English readers
will find in it a large amount of transcendental thinking
and experience, at times somewhat cloudy and unintelligible. To the whole of this current of thought the
remark is applicable: "It is characteristic of such mysticism that in its contemplation of what the Saviour
does in us it undervalues what He has done for us, and
that it devotes more attention to communion with God
and sanctification than to justification by faith, which is
the condition and basis of all fellowship with God." 2
Another remarkable buok of the period, also anonymous, though commonly ascribed to Thomas a Kempis,
is the Imitation of Christ, which, translated into different
languages, has been a favourite with Protestants perhaps
more than with Roman Catholics. The fourth book of
the original, "on the Sacrament of the. Altar," has been
regarded by critics as the composition of a different person
from the writer of the first three books. The work has
been eulogized for its simplicity, devoutness, and practical
1

Hist., vol.

III.

p. 388.

2

Kurtz, vol. r. p. 470.

A.D. 106o-1518.]

Gerson.

321

character ; and it is noticed by one of its modern editors,
as a circumstance which has escaped general observation,
that there is in this popular work of the fifteenth century
no "mention of the intercession of the Virgin to obtain
the forgiveness of sin." 1
This celebrated work has been attributed to GERSON,
Chancellor of the University of Paris, who stands distinguished in connection with the Council of Constance,
A.D.1414; but the authorship probably belongs to Thomas
Hamerken of Kempen, near Cologne, a canon regular of
Zwoll, who died in 1471. Gerson, however, was a mystic,
and with laborious zeal aimed to reform theology, which
he complained of as having degenerated into trifling.
His object, to use his own language, was "concordare
theologiam mysticam cum nostra scholastica ; "and in his
system he distinguished between speculative mysticism
and practical mysticism. Like Richard of St. Victor, he
named three stages of mental ascent-cogitation, meditation, and contemplation : the first relating to sensible
objects, the second to an investigation of truth, the third
to a free gazing on things Divine. Love, he says, is the
experimental perception of God ; through it the eternal
Word is born into the soul, and so the human becomes
united to the Divine. But Gerson avoided pantheism,
depreciated visions, and recommended ascetic practices
as a means of advancing the spiritual apprehension of the
Almighty. 2 His Method of studying Theology and his
Mystical Divinity exerted a powerful influence; and his
disciple Nicholas Clemanges, a zealous Church reformer
in the early part of the fifteenth century, followed in
the same order of thought, insisting upon the connection
1
2

between theology and the spiritual life of the theologian,
and urging that preachers should illustrate in their conduct what they proclaim from the pulpit. His teaching,
with a tinge of mysticism, was eminently practical. 1
Gerson was thoroughly dissatisfied with the logical
quibbles of his age, sick at heart as he looked into the
books written and the schools conducted by the later
nominalists. He was deeply convinced that the scholastic method of study needed reform, and that theology
must be lifted out of the debasing associations into which
it had been plunged. Mysticism was his remedy, the
fulcrum on which he sought such leverage as would raise
religious thought above its degradation. Mysticism, no
doubt, was a potent instrumentality for undermining
Aristotelian forms of argument in the fifteenth century,
indeed for overthrowing a system of inquiry which had
lasted for about seven hundred years. And here, as
we take leave of scholasticism, and mark a sundering
in twain of the old connection between divinity and
school logic, we may Âˇ notice that philosophy in a
new shape, or rather in an old one fitfully revived,
oegan to appea'r, not in the Church, but in the world ;
not Âˇin association with religion, but in a way totally
independent of _it. The fall of Constantinople and the
renewed study of classical Greek led to the perusal
of Plato's dialogues and other works, and a learned
society was established at Florence for that purpose.
The admiration felt for the ancients now knew no bounds.
" The effect of this influx of Grecian influence, at a period
when philosophy was emancipating itself from the absolute authority of the Church, was to transfer allegiance
1

Matter, Hist, vol. III. p. 229.

A.D. ro60-1518.]

Classical Revival.

32 3

from the Church to classical antiquity." 1 In the movement there was much good. The revival of Greek learning prepared for the criticism of the New Testament,
which had been sadly neglected. Âˇ The careful study of
the Gospels and Epistles in the original could not but
expose the absurdity of many media:val comments
on the inspired Christian writings ; but it must not be
forgotten that the classical enthusiam, kindled and kept
aijve in the early Italian schools of learning, had in it
more of a pagan than of a Christian spirit.
1

Lewes, Hist. of Phil., vol. II. p. 88.

y ,

CHAPTER VII.
PREPARATION.FOR REFORM.

T

HERE were many earnest and devoted men in the
Church of Rome who, between the fourteenth and
sixteenth centuries, discerned clearly enough the abuses
and corruptions which abounded in Christendom. They
attacked boldly the evils which aroused their indignation,
and they advocated various practical reforms. But they
had no clear insight into the causes of those mischiefs
which they deplored. They laid down no principles
pregnant with beneficial results. They adopted current
dogmas and espoused long-established institutions, and
did not seek to reform the creeds or in any way to improve
the theology of th~ Church. Persons of this description
do not come within the range of our present studies,
which are confined to phases of biography and history
such as serve to determine the traditions, the developments, and the revolutions in doctrinal opinion.
The theological element to which in the last Chapter
we directed attention played a conspicuous part among
ante-Protestants in preparing for reform'in the sixteenth
century. Referring to sects opposed to Rome, a French
historian has observed," The principle of this opposition,
being a kind of mysticism, nourished more or less by the
reading of certain biblical books,-a primitive measure
more simple and direct than any other,-absorbed the
thoughts of these pious congregations, and revived in the

A.D. 1000-1518.]

:John Wycltffe,

whole Christian community that primitive charity, that
love to God, that purity of manners, and that exaltation
of faith, which had been the glory of the best days of
the Church." 1 Mysticism undermined Popery and its
corruptions.
In Germany and France mysticism and reform
appeared in close connection, but in England it was
otherwise. The morning star of the English Reformation
shines upon us apart from what many would call the
mists, however gloriously tinted, which floated so widely
over theological skies.
The personal,history of JOHN WYCLIFFE (A.D. 13241387) has of late years been subjected to severe critical
tests, and the result is that there appear to have been
more than one ecclesiastic at that period bearing the
same name. Hence one has been confounded with
another in certain comparatively unimportant respects ;
but these researches have rectified such mistakes, and also
relieved the Reformer from a suspicion that hostility
to the Pope and some other circumst_ances in Wycliffe's
history arose from mere personal resentment. Further,
it has been shown that his opposition to the mendicants
did not begin until after he had published his views on
the eucharist-views which resembled those of Berenger,
-and that his opposition aimed at their doctrinal errors
and their personal inconsistencies, and did not proceed
from any fundamental difference as to the principle on
which mendicant orders were based. For Wycliffe himself
insisted much upon the law of evangelical poverty, that
is to say, the renunciation of property for the sake of
Christ, and in imitation of Christ's example; and the
Reformer's institute of" poor priests" seems to have been
1_ Matter,

Histoire du Cltristianisme, vol.

III'.

p.

282.

Preparation for Reform.

[PART IV,

mainly an improved type of that established by St.
Francis, some old monastic peculiarities and pretensions
being dropped, and useful practices substituted in their
place. Singular notions about property, which have
created much discussion, and are not easily understood,
Wycliffe expressed in an unpublished work entitled De
Dominio; and if we may trust a report of the contents by
Dr. Lechler,1 they would seem to amount to something
of this kind-that the absolute proprietorship of things
belongs to Almighty God, and that no other absolute
proprietorship obtains anywhere; that the possession of
property on the part of mankind is a sort of feudal trust,
held immediately from the Divine Lord and Owner of
the universe; and that such possession is truly and
rightly held by those alone who are in a state of grace, .
and, hence, are loyal and obedient vassals of the King of
kings, rendering the righteous fealty which arises out of
their relationship to Him. Man's right comes directly
from God, and is granted in immediate fief to each
Âˇ individual soul, that soul being responsible for the use
made of the Divine estate. No one comes between Goq.
andÂˇ man. God deals directly with man, and man deals
directly with God. Here lies a germ of religious thought
out of which may grow the Lutheran principle of personal
justification ; but no clear and consistent enunication of
that principle has been cited out of Wycliffe's works.
Perhaps passages on grace, faith, and acceptance with God
may be found in Thomas Aquinas as :decided and as
strong, taken by themselves, as any in our English divine;
only there is this important difference between them, that;
whereas the elaborate teaching of the former in reference
' John Wiclijf and his Precursors, by Prof. Lechler,
translated by the late Dr. Lorimer.

D.D.,

was

A,D. 1060-1518.]

Yohn Wycliffe.

to priesthood, sacraments, and other kindred subjects
tends to neutralize much of the evangelical doctrine of
Aquinas, there are not such checks on evangelical truth
in the writings of Wycliffe; indeed, there is, on the contrary, much to check the superstitious application of
sacramental views, the absence of which is manifest in
the system of St. Thomas Aquinas.
In comparing Wycliffe with other prominent men of
the period, we find that in his opposition to the wealth of
the Church, the despotism of the Papacy, and the method
of supporting and promoting the cause of Christ he somewhat resembled Arnold of Brescia; nor were political complications wanting in the case of the English Reformer to
bring out a further likeness between him and the Italian
revolutionist ; but Wycliffe was totally destitute of that
classical enthusiasm which strongly marked the course
of the other memorable personage. He appears more
like a Hebrew prophet, bearing the burden of the Lord,
and seeking to infuse into the Church of Christ renovated
life through the grace which flows from its Divine head.
In that respect he reminds us of Tauler of Strasburg.
Like him too he was one who broke the shell and got
at the kernel of truth ; but he never lost himself, like
the German mystic, in bright clouds of transcendental
imagination. He was not a sentimentalist, though
a realistic philosopher,1 but a man of common sense, of
practical understanding, with a clear head and a sound
heart. Deep piety lay at the bottom of his experience
and character. He loved the Bible; he translated it, on
1 " In philosophia nulli reputabatur secundus, in scholasticis
disciplinis incomparabilis." Knighton, 2664- Tire Last Ag-e of tht
Church would seem not to have been written by Wycliffe. Lechler,
vol. I. p. 228; II. 447-53; Robertson, vol. vu. p. 265.

Preparation for Reform.

[PART IV,

account of the new life it inspired in his own soul, and
for its purifying comfort amidst life's sorrows. Life he
called a valley of weeping, and though not a martyr, his
course, the latter part of it, at least, appears to have been
by no means smooth. Though employed at one time in
important diplomatic service, also assigned a post of
honour in the University of Oxford, and spending, as he
must have done, peaceful hours in the rectory of Lutterworth, a sort of mournful monotone runs throughout his
writings, and one of his biographers found it "difficult
to suppose that his brow was often cheered with a
smile." 1
He adopted the Augustinianism of Bradwardine.
His principal treatise on doctrinal principles is his
Trialogus, 2 which is written in the form of a conversation
between truth, falsehood, and prudence. The absolute
causality of God and the exclusive authority of Scripture
are the two main points on which the whole discussion
turns. He attempts to reconcile human freedom with
the Divine causality by saying that man is like a child
in leading-strings, who at the same time freely uses his
own. limbs, The eternal purpose gives a bent and
direction to human nature and its dispositions, but ,the
individual acts of men are free. God is the efficient
cause of all good; and as to evil, that, being negative
and having no real existence, must not be ascribed to
Divine causality. Wycliffe grappled with the origin of
evil, and sought to solve the problem by an illustration.
There are three ways of beholding God~by direct
perception, by refraction through a medium, and by
1

Dr. Vaughan, Life and Opinions of Wyclijfe.

t It is remar:<:ed by Dr. Lechler that the title is founded on a

fal,e analogy, as if "dialogue" were derived from

ovo,

A.D,

1060-1518.]

Yohn Wycliffe.

reflection from a mirror. Fallen angels declined from
the first to the last, and came to see themselves not as
they are in God, but in separation from Him, whence
they became proud and independ.ent, and fancied themselves equal to the Highest. Herein was their sin; and
what they had thus learned they taught mankind. The
transmission of evil from gen.eration to generation
Wycliffe conceived to be:through the connection of human
souls with human bodies. He believed that every new
soul was a fresh creation, not an existence arising from
parentage, and that, being created with no positive
character, but only a tabula rasa, it contracts pollution
by its contact with human materialism. 1
He resembles Anselm in dwelling on the necessity of the incarnation for redeeming mankind ; and he
insists upon the death of Christ as a substitute and a
satisfaction, adopting the distinction by Thomas Aquinas
between Christ's active and passive obedience. As in"'
timated already, he did not teach the doctrine
of a
forensic justification; but, confounding justification and
holiness, he described salvation as an infusion of grace
into the soul. Faith he regarded chiefly as an intellectual
act, yet as having a supernatural origin and a decidedly
practical end.
It cannot but be noticed, by those who have paid
attention to vVycliffe's writings, how free he was from
mystical tendencies.
Diffidence was mingled with
boldness ; he claimed the liberty of doubting where a
subject is : not plain; and the homely and profitable
common sense of his countrymen appears throughout
the whole performance of his arduous task. One grand
1 Kurtz, vol. I. p. 487.
content,s of the Trialogus.

He gives a condensed account of the

330

Preparation for Reform. ,

[PART IV.

principle of the Trialogus is the supreme authority of
Scripture; and. this he not only vindicated in theory, but
carried out by the most characteristic labour of his life.
The version he produced of the whole Bible was begun
about A.D. 1378. It was made from the Vulgate. Christianity had been latinized in many respects, and the use of
the Roman tongue in sacred literature had been a symbol
of that mediatorial place which the Roman priesthood had
assumed. In Latin men spoke to God. In Latin God
spoke to man. Wycliffe broke down the Latin wall of
partition. He would have people listen to the voice of
the Eternal in no foreign, mediatory tone. Through him
Anglo-Saxons came to hear the word of God in the
racy speech of Anglo-Saxondom. His work shows how
clearly he saw that the pathway of reformation must be
through a knowledge of the Bible ; and he distinctly
maintains that Christ's law sufficeth, that a Christian
man may gather from it what is needful for salvation,
that there is no court of appeal but that of heaven, that
though there were a hundred popes, and all the friars
were cardinals, yet should we learn less from them than
from the gospel, and that true sons will in no wise go
, about to infringe the will and testament of their Father. 1
The practical character of this Reformer's sermons is
thus noticed by one who gave much time to the study
of them. " References," says Dr. Vaughan, "to abstruse
and speculative questions frequently arise, either from the
import of the text, or from the reasonings suggested by .
' Trialogus, IV. 7. Respecting Wycliffe's theological opinions,
the student should consult Vaughan's Life of the Reformer, Lechler's
learned work, and Robertson's History of the Church, vol. VII. pp.
287-294- On the history of his translation see Our English Bible,
published by the Religious Tract Society.

A.D. 1060-1518.]

John Wycliffe.

331

it ; but these are soon dismissed, that the attention of
the people might be directed to 'things more profiting.'
Through the whole the manifold corruptions of the
hierarchy are vigorously assailed; as forming the great
barrier to all spiritual improvement. The duties of men
in all relations are frequently discussed, and always
with a careful, and mostly with. a judicious, reference
to the authority of Scripture; while the doctrines of the
gospel are uniformly exhibited as declaring the guilt and
the spiritual infirmities of men to be such as to show
the atonement of Christ to be their only way of pardon,
and the grace of the Divine Spirit to be their only hope
of purity. We sometimes feel the want of more clearness
in the statement of these truths, and we often wish
to se~ them more fully developed ; but no room is left
to doubt as to their being there, and there as the full
substance of the doctrine taught." 1
The followers of Wycliffe, commonly called Lollards,
were numerous, especially amongst the common people;
there were not wanting, however, in the upper and betterinformed classes, some who went great length in the way
of reform as to Church doctrine and discipline, for a
petition was presented to Parliament containing twelve
conclusions : one pronounces priestly ordination a human
device, and another declares that the dogma of transubstantiation leads to idolatry. In religious opinions the
Lollards do not seem to have been alike. In looking
over documents relating to these men, we find that
disbelief in the Papal doctrine of the real presence was a
prime charge brought against some, as well as the notion
that the efficacy of sacraments is destroyed by the immorality of priests. Pilgrimages and the worship of
1

Wycliffe's Tracts and Treatises, edited by Dr: Vaughan, p. 82.

332

Preparation for Reform.

[PART IV.

saints were condemned by the Lollards, and the Pope
was called Antichrist. Different phases of theological
sentiment appear, and it was only natural in an age
of mental activity, when literature revived, art flourished,
and commercial prosperity advanced, when cities were
rejoicing in chartered liberties, and Parliament was
growing in power, that an impulse should be given to
religious thoughtfulness in different ranks of the community; that old beliefs and old institutions should be
exposed to a searching criticism, and that diversities of
opinion should exist amongst those who rebelled against
the Church authorities of the day.
Some distinguished persons for a while adopted, more
or less, the Wycliffite faith. Philip Reppington, Canon of
Leicester, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln, and Nicholas
Hereford, an Oxford divine, who afterwards, with' many
"prelates and worshipful men, and others," sat in
judgment over accused heretics, were of this description,
but they afterwards abandoned their Lollard opinions.
Walter Brute too, a layman, somewhat eloquent and
exceedingly prolix, whose theological peculiarities are
stated at length by John Foxe,1 not only opposed Popery
and its characteristic dogmas, but engaged himself deeply
in endeavours to explain unfulfilled prophecy, seeking
the fulfilment of Scripture in passing events, and in
changes he supposed to be close at hand.
Perhaps the most singular instance at that period of
mental activity in connection with religious doctrine and
ecclesiastical matters may be found in the case of
REGINALD PEC0CK, appointed to the see of Asaph A.D.
1444, and to the see of Chichester 1450. At one time
1

Acts and Monuments, vol. III. p. 131 et seq.
Society's edit.

Religious Tract

A.D. 106o-1518.]

Reginald Pecock.

333

he maintained that it is not necessary to believe our
Lord descended into hell, or to believe in the Holy
Spirit, or in the Catholic Communion, or in the infal- Âˇ
libility of the Church, or in theÂˇ universal authority of
general councils. Finally he said, " It is sufficient for
every one to understand, Holy Scripture in its literal
sense." Afterwards, at St. Paul's Cross, he abjured these
" errors and heresies." He recanted, says Thomas Fuller,
confuted by seven solid arguments, thus enumerated" Auctoritate, Vi, Arte, Fraude, Metu, Terrore, et Tyrannide." Pecock wrote two books against the Lollards:
An Introduction to the Chief Truths of the Christian
Relig-ion, in A.D. 1440, and The Repressor of Overmuch
Blaming of the Clergy, in 1449; his Treatise on Faith also
opposed the Lollards. These were published before his
recantation at St. Paul's Cross, and on that occasion
were burnt before a great multitude of people.
" Pecock himself," says one qualified to give an
opinion,1 "is a singular illustration of the eclecticism, so
to say, which prevailed. He virtually admitted, on the
one hand, the fallibility of general councils, and insisted
strenuously on the necessity of proving doctrines by
reason and not simply by authority; while, on the other,
he carried his notions on the Papal supremacy almost as
far as an Ultramontane could desire, and was blamed
even by men like Gascoigne for giving more than its
due to the Pope's temporal authority. In maintaining
Scripture to be the sole rule of faith, and in rejecting the
apocryphal books as uncanonical, he agrees with the
Reformers altogether ; in his doctrine of the invocation
1 The
Rev. Churchill Babington, editor of Pecock's work
The Repressor of Overmuch Blaming of the Clergy. Published in
186o.

334

Preparation for Reform.

[PART IV.

of saints and in various other particulars, he agrees altogether with their adversaries. If in his discourse of
images he writes some things which few Anglicans would
approve, so also he writes others in the same discourse
which many Romanists would still less approve. Perhaps
it would not be greatly wrong to assert that Pecock
stands half way between the Church of Rome and the
Church of England as they now exist, the type of his
mind, however, being rather Anglican than Roman." His
Ultramontane views would hardly confirm this lastjudgment; and perhaps what follows should be somewhat
modified-"of Puritanism in all its phases he is the decided
opponent." To maintain that Scripture is the sole rule
of faith, looks somewhat like Puritanism. Consistency
cannot be looked for in Pecock. He appears as a sort of
theological chameleon, so different in one place from what
he is in another; that three bulls came from Rome in his
defence, and Foxe treats him as a Reformer before the
Reformation. Indeed Babington remarks that Pecock
"contributed very materially to the Reformation, which
took place in the foilowing century."
The intellectual and literary character of the Repressor stands very high.' It has been said that .it contains
passages well worthy of Hooker, both for weight of
matter and dignity of style. And Babington adds, " Fulness of language, pliancy of expression, argumentative
sagacity, extensive learning, and critical skill distinguish
almost every chapter." " It is the earliest piece of good
philosophical discussion of which our English prose
literature can boast."
Wycliffe's influence as a Reformer extended beyond his
own country. JEROME OF PRAGUE, who visited England
in A.D. 1400, carried home English reformatory influences,

A.D.

Yohn Hus.

1060-1518.]

335

which blended with others of the same description
already existing in Bohemia. JOHN Hus (A.D. 13731415) came under their power, and though at first unfavourable to some of Wycliffe's tracts, he afterwards aided
Jerome in their circulation, and avowed himself a pupil
of the English Reformer. His doctrinal views are
expressed in his work De Ecclesid. In it he exhibits
the gospel under its moral and spiritual aspect, and he
shows how he had imbibed the theological principles of
Augustine. With the errors of transubstantiation, purgatory, and others of the same kind still clinging to him,
he himself earnestly trusted the crucified Saviour, and
strove to lead others to do the same. 1 He studied in the
University of Prague, and in that grand old city spent .
most of his life, where he proved himself to be a great
spiritual power. He laid hold of the idea that the whole
Church of Christ is a priesthood, and has no mediator but
Him, thus grasping what is fatal to such an ecclesiastical
system as that of the mediceval epoch. The spirit of
his teaching lived on after he had been burnt to ashes
outside the gates of Constance, and the Hussite cause
became a great trouble to the Church of Rome.
One JOHN OF TROCZNOW, commonly known as Ziska,
took the lead in this movement, having sworn to avenge
the death of Hus. Many who assembled on St. Magdalene's day, when the communion was over, followed him
to Prague, attacked the convents, and even put to death
some of the magistrates of the city. Wenceslaus, King
of Bohemia, died from apoplexy brought on by this disturbance ; and the Emperor Sigismund, whose safeconduct to Hus had been violated, remained heir of the
royal inheritance. As he had become an object of
1

Kurtz, vol.

I.

p. 496.

336

Preparation for Reform.

[PART IV.

execration to the Hussites for violating his promise, they
broke out into unrestrained disturbance at the thought
of his accession to the throne. There was a mild -party
of Bohemian Reformers called Utraquists, or Calixtines,
because mainly anxious to have the cup as well as the
wafer in the sacrament ; but there existed another party,
led on by Ziska, who opposed the Church system altogether, rejected tradition, and required Scripture warrant
for every religious practice. With their religious opinions
republican principles were interwoven, and to this class
belongs the name of Taborites, from their making Mount
Tabor a centre of resort. 1
The moderate party drew up a documertt in A.D. 1420,
called the Four A rtic!es of Prague: first, that the Word
of God should be freely preached; secondly, that the
eucharist should be administered in both kinds ; thirdly,
that the clergy should be deprived of their secular lordships and temporalities; and fourthly, by a strange cla~sification of offences, that besides deadly sins, the exaction
of fees by the clergy should be forbidden and repressed.
' "On St. Mary Magdalene's day, 1419, a great meeting of
Hussites was assembled on a hill near Aust, in the circle of Bechin,
where the holy communion was celebrated in the open air. There
was no previous confession; the clergy (among whom were John
Cardinal and Jacobellus of Misa) wore no distinctive vestures; the
chalices were of wood, and the three hundred altars were without any
covering. Forty-two thousand persons, men, women, and children,
communicated; and the celebration was followed by a love-feast, at
which the rich shared with their poorer brethren; but no drinking or
dancing, no gaming or music, was allowed. The people encamped in
tents, which, in the Bohemian language, were called Tabor; and out
of this celebration grew a town, which received .that name, with
reference at once to the circumstances of the meeting, and to the
mount of the Saviour's transfiguration."-Robertson, vol. VIII. p. 19.

A.D. 1060-1518.J

Bohemian Brethren.

337

The avarice of the Church had provoked this last stipulation. These articles, which did not satisfy the Taborites,
seem to have been tolerated for a time ; but the war
went on, and as late as A.D. 1431 new crusade against
the Hussites was authorized by the Pope.
The Bohemian Brethren must not be confounded wtth
the Hussites either in history, doctrine, or spirit. They
first appeared at Prague about A.D. 1450, being influenced
by a layman, Peter of Chelcick, who contended more for
the moralities of religion than for particular dogmas, and
opposed the Church system, as well as oaths, war, and
capital punishment : some of the Lollards and some of
the Waldenses did the same. The Brethren determined
to have a ministry of their own, not caring about any
order of succession, but looking only fo personal qualifications. They bound themselves not to seek the
redress of grievances by taking up arms, as the Hussites
had done, but to defend themselves by remonstrance,
patience, and prayer. Negotiations were carried on
between them and the Vaudois, and some of their
ministers received ordination from a bishop of the
vaUeys. But, though so peaceable, they could not escape
persecution. In A.D. 1468 a decree was issued against
them; their members were thrown into Bohemian prisons;
and their first bishop, Michael, continued in close confinement until the death of King Podibrad, A.D. 1471.
Some perished with hunger, others were tortured, the
remainder fled to Bohemia, where they found comfort
and joy in studying the Scriptures. Not daring to kindle
a fire by day, lest the smoke should betray their haunts,
and dragging brushwood after them to obliterate their
footprints, these pit-dwellers, as their enemie~ nicknamed
them, heaped up blazing fagots at night, not only to

a

z

338

Preparation for Reform.

[PART IV.

warm their limbs, but to serve as lamps for reading their
much-worn New Testaments in the forest sanctuary.
When they obtained some respite from persecution, they
were amongst the first to employ the newly-invented art
of printing for sacred purposes ; and before the Reformation they issued three editions of the Bohemian Bible.
We must turn to Italy for one moment. JEROME
SAVONAROLA (A.D. 1452.:..1498) distinguished himself in
Florence as a Dominican preacher of rare eloquence and
immense popularity. He denounced the fashionable
weaknesses and vices of his day, and wrought a wonderful outward reformation in the city ; he even persuaded
men and women to burn, in an enormous heap, various
articles of luxury. The crowds that came to hear him
have been well described. "The people got up in the
middle of the night to get places for the sermon, and
came to the door of the cathedral and waited outside till
it should be opened, making no account of any inconvenience, neither of the cold, nor the wind, nor of standing in winter with their feet on the marble; and among
them were old and young, women and children, of every
sort; who came with such jubilee and rejoicing that it
was bewildering to hear them, going to the sermon as to
a wedding. Then the silence was great in the church,
each one going to his place ; and he who could read,
with a taper in his hand read the service and other
prayers. And though many thousand people were thus
collected together, no sound was to be heard, not even
a "hush," until the arrival of the children, who sang
hymns with so much sweetness that heaven seemed to be
opened. Thus they waited three or four hours till the
padre entered the pulpit. And the attention of so great
a mass of people, all with eyes and ears intent upon the

A.D. IOSo-1518,]

Savonarola.

339

preacher, was wonderful ; they listened so that when the
sermon reached its end it seemed to them that it had
scarcely begun." 1
The fanatical strain which mingled with the better
characteristics of Savonarola's sermons, which often
glowed with evangelical light and fervour, is to be connected with the incident just noticed; and some of the
political and personal complications of his career must be
included amongst the shadows of his illustrious life. Nor
should we omit to mention that he indulged in strange
interpretations of prophecy, and spoke of visions he had
of a wonderful kind. He for a time wielded the fierce
democracy of the Florentine Republic, without penetrating it with that piety which pervaded his own soul ; the
consequence was the bitter enmity of political opponents,
especially the. partisans of the Medici, whose policy he
opposed. He roused the priesthood against him by
exposing their misconduct, and also provoked the Pope
of Rome, who, after having offered him a cardinal's hat,
excommunicated the preacher. At last the eloquent
Dominican was brought before a commission appointed
to try hisÂˇ case, and on being put to the torture his delicate frame could not endure the agony, and, unconscious of what he was saying, he confessed whatever
was suggested. The tragedy ended in his being hanged
and burnt. In early life he had been addicted to literary
studies, and wrote a compendium of philosophy, "an
epitome of all the writings, various as they are, of the
Stagyrite;" a work which, according to Padre Marchese,
"might have acted as a stepping-stone to the Novum
Organum." 2 This seems very improbable, as the minds
1

of Savonarola and Bacon were as unlike as they well
could be. "Another treatise of a similar character he had
begun upon Plato." This was much more in his way, but
the author tells us that he destroyed it. In after years
he thought less of Aristotle and Plato, and more of the
Bible, making it his text-book, and learning it by heart.
Savonarola's orthodoxy has been regarded as unimpeachable by the Romish Church ; and his hook on the
Triumph of the Cross has been approved by the Jesuits;
it is even said that two popes declared him worthy of
canonization. Yet Luther was charmed with some of
his writings, and pronounced him one of his own forerunners; accordingly, he appears in that position on the
monument at Worms. He did not attack the Church
system of the day, only its corruptions; nor did he propound any theory adverse to the priesthood or its clerical
grades ; he only assailed the immoralities and inconsistencies of his brethren. He did not go so far as Wycliffe;
he did not insist, like Hus, on the priesthood of the universal Church. But, like him, he stirred up personal
animosity, and had to pay the penalty. He is not to be
regarded as a reformer, or as a distinguished th.eologian,
or as a precursor of the Reformation in the way of laying down great principles; he is rather to be looked
upon as a pious, devout, and earnest man, striving, not
always wisely, to sweep away vice, irrelig-ion, and folly,
and to reform the republic in which he lived.
Before leaving Savonarola altogether, we may be
allowed to add a word or two relative to a characteristic
of his teaching which appears to have been not peculiar
to himself. A history of the interpretation of prophecy
does not come within the limits of this work; a
history of original prophecies uttered by persons re-

A.D. 1000-1518.]

Prophesyings.

34 1

garded by others as in some way inspired is still further
removed beyond the line of our present study. But it
is worth while to notice that Savonarola not only expounded the Apocalypse and applied passages in it to
approaching events, but he spoke of words revealed to
him in visions from the Lord. 1 Some of his predictions so uttered were fulfilled, and this produced or
strengthened the belief that he was an inspired prophet.
We are not aware whether he taught any particular
dogma on the subject of inspiration; but clearly the
claim to a power of foreseeing events, and a concession
of that claim, involved the idea that gifts of inspiration
had not ceased, that God still revealed His purposes to
men-an idea which, if not formulated into a theological
dogma, must have been a powerful element in religious
belief. It is curious to find still in existence notes taken
by a contemporary containing extracts from Savonarola's
prophetic preaching, and from the writings of other
persons who foretold what was to happen in the Church
and the world. 2 The contents seem to be of little
or no interest, because the specimens given are vague
or unintelligible; but they indicate a habit of thought
pertaining to incipient Reformers, and very popular
amongst their followers. A book entitled Prognosticatio
was published in 1488 by some one assuming the name
of Ruth, meaning by it a gleaner in the field of prophecy,
1 As to .Savonarola's preaching, see Gieseler, vol. III. p. 377; he
gives copious extracts: M'Crie's Hist. of the Reformation i"n Italy,
pp. 27-36, and translations in the Appendix, p. 449 : Mosheim,-a
good note with references in Reid's edition,-p. 540 : and Robertson,
vol. VIII. p. 236.
2
See Maitland's Eight Essays, p. 217. Many years ago I saw
and perused a MS. translation of a number of Savonarola's prophetical _orations.

Preparation for Reform.

342

[PART IV.

following predecessors, as Ruth did Boaz. The proper
name of the author, according to the book itself, is
':Johannes Lychtenberger, and he gives something like a
theory of prophetic gifts. They result, he says, first, from
long experience and observation ; secondly, from the stars
-in other words, astrology ; and, thirdly, from revelations
through Divine visions and other ways. Then the author
speaks of the Sibyl, the Old Testament prophets, St.
John, St. Bridget, and a certain Reynlzardus Lolhardusprobably a Lollard of the name of Reynard. It is a
singular coincidence that we find John Foxe speaking of
"prophecies amongst the Lollards ; " and beyond all
doubt prophesyings were popular towards the close of
the Middle Ages, both inside and outside the Church
of Rome. Lychtenberger's book passed through many
editions. Maitland gives a list of eighteen, between
A.D. 1492 and 1539, and intimates that this list does not
contain the whole number. To one of these Luther
wrote a preface. 1
1

Maitland's Ez'ght Essays, pp.

216-227.

343

CHAPTER VIII.
GENERAL REVIEW.-A.D. 200-1500.

H

concluded our brief and imperfect review
of the history of theology down to the beginning
of the sixteenth century, we may here with propriety
pause for a moment in order to gather up a few observations, some of which have already been anticipated.
I. Old forms of pagan philosophy, which played a
conspicuous part in the ante-Nicene Church, disappear
as we follow the development of theology in the Middle
Ages. Gnosticism and N eoplatonism were antagonist
forces, for some time very troublesome and very formidable. The former occupied a large share of controversial attention. Iremeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and
Theodoret took a leading part in this warfare, and did
their utmost to discover, expose, and overthrow the
dogmas and dreams of such men as Basilides and
Valentinus. It is plain that systems of thought which
to many now-a-days may seem powerless and contemptible, had in the estimation of early theological critics a
very serious and threatening aspect. They felt that it
was no easy thing to brush them aside, that they had laid
forcible hold on many minds, and that it required a
considerable effort to tear them away. The view taken
by some in our own times of Gnostic ideas as anticipations
of modern philosophy is enoughÂˇ to show that they had in
them a fascination for minds of a certain order ; and the
more we dwell upon the subject, the more clearly do we see
AVING

344

General Review.

[PART IV.

that an alarming amount of peril existed at the gates of
the Christian Church, and that only by earnest battle
against the errors and falsehoods of Gnosticism could,
Divine truth be preserved in its substantial integrity.)
N eoplatonism, as propounded by Plotinus and Porphyry,
had also much to recommend it to Alexandrian thinkers.
The tincture it received from a study of the great master
of Greek wisdom imparted to it a sweetness of flavour
fitted to the taste of not a few. Had Gnostic myths
gained a footing in the Church, had gospel narratives
been buried under a load of Gnostic fables, the consequence would have been most disastrous, and Christianity
would have become a heterogeneous mass of notions, in
which the true would have been neutralized by the false.
Also, had N eoplatonism gained a mastery over the minds
of the Fathers, had Clement and Origen become like
Plotinus and Porphyry, had the Nicene Church been
penetrated by the principles of the new philosophy, so
as to forsake Scripture, or to question its authority, the
doom of the early Church would have been sealed. But
Divine providence, and the power of that Spirit which
Jesus Christ promised to His disciples as an abiding
Guide and Comforter, preserved Christendom from such
tremendous mischief. The injurious influence of old
philosophies in certain ways upon the development of
doctrine in Christendom we have pointed out, and they
ought to be carefully kept in view; but, on the other
hand, it is inexcusable to overlook the great victory
which, on the whole, was won by Christian theology
over the philosophical as well as the mythologicalÂˇ
systems of paganism. The fundamental facts of our
religion, its historical character as opposed to mere
mythical ideas, the nativity, the life, the death, the

A.D. 200-1500.J

Extinctz'on of Arz'anzsm.

345

resurrection of Jesus Christ, held their ground in the
Confessions of the Church and in the hearts of believers;
and at the same time the Church at large, amidst perils
and struggles, continued to maintain a clear, distinct, and
invincible faith in the incarnation, the Divinity, the
redemption, and the glory of our blessed Lord. Whatever we may have seen of that which is truly called vain
philosophy in the history of media!val thought; .whatever marks may have been made by it on certain notions
and tendencies which it. has been our business to describe; though both superstition and rationalism may be
detected here and there, it would be historically untrue,
it would be an implicit denial of the Lord's promise that
He would be with His people to the end of the world,
and it would be ungrateful to the Giver of all good, to
represent Christendom in the Middle Ages as having
relapsed into something like paganism.
2. The extinction of Arianism soon after the
Nicene period 'is another notable fact. The spread of
Arianism for a time went far beyond what many persons
suppose.
Not only were many of the Greek theologians imbued with it,Âˇ not only was it countenanced
by emperors and courts, not only did the cities of the
East on both sides the Mediterranean come under
its influence, but those northern tribes which invaded
the Roman empire and broke it up into fragments
adopted forms of Arian belief. The Goths, the Vandals,
and the Burgundians were more or less Arianized in
their opinions. On the banks of the Danube, in the
region of Gaul, to the south of the Pyrenees, and on
the Italian shores the heresy established itself. Names
mentioned with honour. in the records of history and
perpetuated with renown in the monuments of art

General Review.

[PART IV.

belonged to Arian sects. Ulphilas, who translated the
Scriptures, was an Arian teacher; Theodoric, who built
theÂˇ magnificent Byzantine church of San Apollir.are
N uovo at Ravenna, and whose mausoleum, erected by
himself, is one of the most interesting relics in that
ancient city, was an Arian prince. Much of the literature
produced at the time when the empire was crumbling
to pieces has perished, and is now beyond recall. Greek,
Latin, and other books then read are by us totally
unknown ; but there is reason to believe that many of
them were composed on the Arian side, and valued by
Arian Christians. Orthodox productions have been
preserved, and heterodoxÂˇ writings are lost, a circumstance which was to be expected. In short, the diffusion
of Arianism over Christendom in the fourth, fifth, and
sixth centuries is a clearly-attested fact of history. But
the rapidity of its decline resembled the rapidity of its
advance. It swept over Europe with a marvellous force,
and then collapsed with a marvellous weakness. In
Africa, in Italy, in Gaul, in Spain it was extirpated.
It lingered longer in Lombardy than it did anywhere
else, and expired there in the seventh century. The
Arian controversy had no place in the theological conflicts of the Middle Ages, and waited for its revival at
a much later period.
Âˇ
3. The conflict between Augustinian and Pelagian
sentiments was by far the most persistent and prominent
amongst medireval controversies. The mutations in the
history of human opinions are truly surprising, and their
causes, in many cases, baffle the search of inquisitive
students ; but there is one very obvious fact in relation
to this subject which probably had a causative influence
upon the disputations now under notice, that they chiefly

A.D. 200-1500.J

Augustinianism and Pelagianism.

347

prevailed in the Western or Latin Church. The energy
of the Greek intellect seems to have exhausted itself in
inquiries respecting the Divine nature. Monarchianism,
Eutychianism, N estorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism were phases of thought which had a perfect
fascination for Eastern minds, and long kept them in a
state ofÂˇ agitation. Also by the greater thinkers of the
East the foundations of orthodox Trinitarianism were
laid, and the writings of Athanasius remained when he
was gone, the standard works on the subject suggesting
arguments to subsequent polemics. Ambrose and Hilary
and other Western champions on the orthodox side were
followers, rather than leaders, in the battle against
Arianism, and in originality and force were left far
behind the Bishop of Alexandria. Theologians still
turn to his productions for weapons in defence of the
doctrine of our Lord's true and proper Divinity. But if
the question about the Trinity bears on it most deeply
the stamp of the Greek mind, the question about grace
and free will, Divine predestination and human agency,
has received its strongest marks from the thoughtfulness
of Western minds. Augustine made it all his own. He
took it up and worked it through with a depth and
comprehensiveness which left little to be supplied by the
mental activity of any one else. And what he had himself produced he bequeathed as an heirloom to the Latin
Church of the Middle Ages ; and most carefully they
watched over the bequest. Augustinianism on the
points just mentioned, and on others closely related
to it, took deep root in the opinions of theologians
through the successive stages of scholastic divinity.
What Augustine had said carried with it the highest human authority, and to come in antagonism to

General Review.

[PART IV.

Augustine's conclusions imperilled the reputation of any
teacher. Round the circle which he had drawn the
thought of one schoolman after another patiently revolved, most commonly confirming what he had said, but
occasionally, yet with more timidity than boldness, venturing to differ from some of his positions. Pelagianism,
in its avowed original form, and semi-Pelagianism too in
systematic shape, disappeared almost as completely as
Arianism ; but tendencies in that direction, schemes of
thought of a decidedly Pelagian colour, were ever and
anon presenting themselves, to the vexation of orthodox
divines. A large space in the preceding chapters has
been taken up by a statement of the opinions of John
Erigena and of Archbishop Anselm, of Abelard and of
Bernard, of Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus ; and
those opinions in their distinctive character all seem to
turn more or less upon the grand moot-points between
Augustine and Pelagius. Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas, as
we have shown, walk in the steps of Augustine. John
Erigena, Abelard, and Duns Scotus keep, more or less
closely, to the lines marked out by Pelagius. But there
is this difference, that whilst the orthodox were glad to
quote the Bishop of Hippo as their leader, those who
were counted heterodox were by no means proud of the
name of the British monk. Every schoolman wished to
be considered an Augustinian ; no one counted it an
honour to be treated as a Pelagian. What lay at the
heart of the question went far deeper than any dispute
of a metaphysical or logical kind. It had to do with
the relationship in which man stands to God, and there-Âˇ
fore it touched the highest interests of humanity. To
determine whether we are saved by grace, or by inherent
merit; whether we are to depend upon God, or upon

A.D. 200-1500.J

Augustinianism and Pe!agianism.

349

ourselves ; whether a Divine plan governs the world, or
men are left to determine all things according to their
own wills; whether we are fallen and need redemption,
or are in the original condition of our first parents, and
only need instruction and example,-these surely are
profound questions, if there be any within the scope of
human reflection. To treat them as though they were
mere abstractions, trifling and frivolous centuries ago,
and without Âˇany practical interest for men and women
of the present day, betrays a singular want of philosophical instinct, as well as of historical penetration, to
say nothing of devotional sentiment. Whether Christ
is to be regarded as a creature, or as essentially one with
God, is certainly a point upon the determination of
which a great deal in our religious life must depend.
Personal piety with its practical consequences must take
a shape corresponding with the results we reach respecting it; but if the great controversy of the East has
important issues, in spite of all the depreciation of it by
many very estimable persons, the great controversy of the
West comes home to our business and our bosoms quite
as closely, if not still more so. What God is and what
we art and must be in relation to Him, are inquiries of
the very highest interest ; and as Athanasius took up the
one question, so Augustine took up the other. Moreover,
if Arianism tends to affect us in our devotions, that is
to say, in the most secret communion between our souls
and the Infinite and Eternal One, Pelagianism tends to
affect us in the same respect, and, by weakening our faith
in the efficacy of Divine grace, to diminish that hope of
succour here and of everlasting bliss hereafter which has
ever been such a motive to Christian obedience, and such
a source of comfort amidst the sorrows of human life.

350

General Review.

[PART IV,

4. The controversy which, next to that just noticed,
occupied the attention of divines in the Middle Ages
relates to the nature of the Lord's Supper. The opinions
of Paschasius Radbert, Archbishop Hincmar, and the
rest, on the one side, and of Ratramnus, Berenger, and
the rest on the other, have long been canvassed chiefly in
reference to a difference of doctrine on the subject between
Roman Catholics and Protestants. Transubstantiation, or
what closely approached it, is treated as aÂˇ superstitious
and hurtful error, and so it undoubtedly is : opposition
to the tenet of a substantial change in the primitive
elements inspires sympathy and admiration as a sign
of Christian intelligence and superior faith ; and this is
perfectly right. But we cannot help recognizing in the
disputation something beyond this. The Lord's Supper
is a most significant gospel rite. It points to the
historical fact of our Lord's death. It perpetuates the
memory of His crucifixion. Its frequent repetition keeps
alive in devout minds what they owe to Him who shed
His blood for the forgiveness of sins, and who by the
sacrifice of His own life has poured a new life into the
bosom of every believer. In these momentous associations we find the secret of that pow~r which the
Lord's Supper has ever had over the minds of Christ's
disciples. "Do this in remembrance of Me," are words
full of evangelical suggestions ; for we are led to ask,
Why are we required to remember Him, but because
we owe our salvation to Him? "This is My body,
and this is My blood," are words which point to the vital
efficacy of His grace who offered Himself for us on thecross. We cannot help seeing on these very accounts,
so clearly revealed to us in the Gospels and Epistles of
the New Testament, that the Lord's Supper from the

A.n.

200-1500.J

Eucharistic Controversy.

35 1

beginning was lifted up to a lofty elevation as a central
act of Christian worship, as an expression of union with
the Saviour, and as a bond of fellowship between His
followers. That being so, the excitement of human
imagination and the ecstasies of pious devotion, not
controlled, as they ought to have been, by enlightened
Christian reason, led the understanding captive, and
blinded the judgment, so that in days when magical
charms were common and ceremonies were in high
repute, people came to attribute intrinsic virtues to
what were meant only as signs, and mistook types for
the substance they shadowed forth. This, probably, is
the genesis of those extravagant and unscriptural views
of the Lord's Supper which prevailed in early time and
advanced in the Middle Ages, and which called forth
the protests of Ratramnus and Berenger. The impassioned rhetoric of Chrysostom and others, when celebrating the Eucharist, had come to be treated as a
logical description of the bread and wine employed
in theÂˇ holy commemoration ; and what had been only
an imagination of the preacher was transformed into
a solid reality in the hands of the priest. But that
and all the disputes it engendered bore witness to the
existence of faith in Jesus Christ, as being much more
than a teacher, much more than a martyr, much more
than an example, much more than the greatest of human
benefacto;s, Transubstantiation must have been an
exaggerated perversion of the truth that Christ is the
bread of life come dow.n .from heaven to give life to the
world. Apart from the true doctrine of redemption
through our Lord Jesus, the notion of a Divine real
presence in the Lord's Supper would have been
impossible, and controversies on the question could

352

General- Review.

[PART IV.

never have found a place in the history of Christian
doctrine.
5. We have seen throughout the Middle Ages the
coexistence of traditionalism and free inquiry. The
dogmas of the Church were carefully maintained, but
individual opinion found room for play, notwithstanding
the checks of ancient prescription. The spirit of liberty
never died out during the thousand years of spiritual
despotism. Fathers, councils, and creeds could only to
a certain extent stereotype the faith of men included
within the precincts of the o~thodox Church. John
Erigena, Peter Abelard, Duns Scotus-though many in
our day would count them mere rationalists-lived and
died members of the Catholic Communion. They never
threw off their ecclesiastical allegiance. They never
denied the supremacy of the Pope, or called in question patristic and conciliar decisions ; yet still they
broached and defended their own opinions. They
exercised, if they did not formally claim, a considerable
amount of intellectual independence, and did not regard
themselves as thereby compromising in any degree their
claim to the character of orthodox Churchmen. In the case
of men often accounted rationalists this is plain enough.
The names just cited will be admitted as representative
of a free thought party in the dark ages. But another
class of thinkers who have passed before us are also
entitled to be joined to the same category, though not
commonly brought within it. Gottschalk and Bradwardine were removed to the furthest point on the side
opposite to rationalism. Gottschalk repudiated the
idea of setting up reason against revelation. No one
could more humbly submit to authority in religion.
Nor did he formally oppose the authority of the Bible

A.D. 200-1500.]

Free Thought.

353

to the authority of the Church. The latter did not
come within the range of his dispute. He took the side
of Augustinianism, and pleaded for Divine grace against
human merit, and in doing so exercised an amount of
freedom on one side which balanced that of very different
thinkersÂˇ on the other. He might be said to be more
Augustinian than Augustine himself, for in the use of
his own private judgment he added the idea of reprobation to the idea of election. Bradwardine resembled
Gottschalk. He advocated the principle of Divine
sovereignty and free grace against the idea of human
meritoriousness and the liberty of the will. He pushed
the doctrine of Divine decrees to the greatest possible
extent. He complained of the Church of his day as
being thoroughly Pelagian. He was left alone, he said,
like Elijah amidst the. priests of Baal. Luther was
scarcely more bold.
In contending for orthodoxy
against heresy, Bradwardine evinced as much freedom
of thought as any heretic could in fighting against the
orthodoxy of his age. Reginald Pecock is only another
variation of the same general type. Some of the errors
and heresies with which he was charged, and which he
publicly abjured at St. Paul's Cross, probably he had
held, and so far he had walked in rationalistic paths ;
also he admitted the fallibility of general councils,
and insisted upon reason and upon Scripture rather
than upon Church authority as the rule of faith ; but in
his defence of the episcopal order, at the time very
unpopulftr,-in his opposition to /igid Anglicans as
well as to decided Lollards, who were both powerful
parties,__.:._in his book entitled The Repressor of Overmuch Blaming of tlze Clergy, where he defended his
brethren from popular aspersions,- and in his UltraA A

354

General Review.

[PART

r.v.

montane support of the Papacy, when its arrogant
pretensions were being resisted, he manifested an indivi\iuality of opinion no less free and bold than it had
been at another time on the opposite side. In these
very different ways the exercise of private judgment
appeared in the Middle Ages, when, as many formerly
supposed, the minds of men were in a state of common
hardness and inaction, like one solid block of ice.
6. Upon the later, no less than upon the earlier
developments of theological opinion, different influences
had their effect. Throughout the chapters on scholastic
divinity the influence of Church authority has been
apparent at every step. The decisions of Niccea and
Constantinople are seen to have be.en all along of binding force.
Mediceval councils with their doctrinal
canons come in the wake of the Nicene ones. Positions
in advance of earlier times are taken up and maintained,
as ~n the condemnation of Semi-Pelagian notions at
the Council of Orange in A.D. 529, and on the scholastic
affirmation of transubstantiation at the Council of the
Lateran in 1215. Church authority in the Middle Ages
was more potent than Church authority in the fourth
century. The habit of submission became confirmed
through long exercise. Men of commanding mindswhether distinguished by original genius, as in the case
of Anselm, or by the power of industrious compilation,
as in the case of Peter Lombard, or by the gift of keen
analysis and logical arrangement, as in the case of
Thomas Aquinas-came forw~rd in the defence and
development of orthodox doctrines, upholding the
authority of the Church, and by example and argument promoting obedience in the faithful. At the
same time the effect of ancient learning was perpetuated

A.D. 200-1500.]

Sources of Influence.

355

even when its records had ceased to be read. Ignorance
of Greek in the Middle Ages, though perhaps exaggerated, cannot be denied. Alexandrine and By?antine
Fathers could no more be read than the original New
Testament; but streams of thought flowing from the
writings of Nicene theologians were conducted through
Latin channels. into media!val minds.
And in the
same way Greek culture of another kind continued to
touch and direct scholastic minds, sometimes in the
form of Platonic, sometimes in the form of Aristotelian
philosophy.
Latin learning was in the ascendant.
The classics, though looked on with suspicion, were not
totally neglected. Under protest, and by stealth, in
some cases, they were studied by_ men of superior taste
and irrepressible curiosity ; but of course the Latin
Fathers stood first and foremost on the shelves of the
library, and were oftenest lying on the desk of the
studi;nt. The effect of Latin divinity on the minds of
Churchmen all over Europe for a thousand years can
hardly be over-estimated.
But there was a source of influence which must be
considered by itself. The breaking up of the Roman
empire by invasions from the north, which, pouring
down on the countries of the south, carried with them
consequences beyond convulsions in government, beyond
changes of dynasties, beyond any kind of secular revolution. They set up a new order of things throughout
Europe, fraught with new institutions, new languages,
new literatures. The Teutonic element regenerated
European life, and started our division of the human race
upon an tin precedented career. What would have become
of society had the old Roman empire been left to itself
Âˇ it is impossible to say, but that society could not have
AA2

356

General Revie-!.V.

[PART IV.

taken the shape it did in the Middle Ages and afterwards, without the crisis of disruption, and the infusion
of new blood, nobody can deny. And its effect on theology, as on other things, was very great. The Teutonic
intellect is clearly distinguishable among the other factors
of media!val thought. That intellect is more robust,
more rich, more varied, more agile, more methodical, and
more closely allied to the sensibilities of humanity than
what we find in Oriental and Saracenic races. Teutons,
fierce and brave as the men of Eastern climes, had
qualities different from those of their swarthy brethren,
and these qualities told upon the Church. If the influence of Teutonic soldiership appears in certain medi.l!val
bishops who exchanged the crosier for thesword,laid down
the mitre that they might put on the helmet, and stripped
themselves of sacerdotal robes in order to clothe themselves in coats of mail, the influence of Teutonic morals
upon the purer domestic life which grew up in the Middle
Ages, as well as the influence of Teutonic independence
upon the struggles and reforms which inspire the story
of media!val Christendom, also come in for a share of
recognition. And in accordance with all this, the Teutonic mind laid hold upon the gospel with a firmer and
more comprehensive grasp than any of the Greeks had
ever done. They were strong on certain points, but
their theology was angular, sectional, not embracing a
wide range, not traversing the land of truth in the length
and breadth thereof. But media!val divines, with the
advantage of Teutonic power and inspiration, whatever
their errors and defects, entered into fields of inquiry
neglected by the Greek Fathers, and took up and pursued with greater penetration and industry subjects
started by the old leaders of Latin Christendom. We

A.D. 200-1500.]

Sources of Influence.

357

cannot imagine that what was accomplished by the best
of the scholastic divines could ever have been reached
by such men as peopled the shores of the Mediterranean
in the fifth century. All the med'ia!val doctors, whatever
their birthplace, whatever their descent, shared in the
effect of the great revolution which had come over the
world. Those who were born Italians, like Anselm,
Peter Lombard, and Aquinas, had Teutonic influences at
work on their minds, if they had not Teutonic blood
flowing in their veins. And this is remarkable, that
those who were the most independent thinkers were of
Teutonic race: Alcuin, John Erigena, Gottschalk, Abelard, Bradwardine, Wycliffe, Pecock, and ahe German
and Flemish mystics.
But for that influence which was at once most salutary and most efficacious in the production of media!val
theology we must turn to the Holy Scriptures and the
Spirit of God. That. the Scriptures were known and
read and studied in what are called the dark ages has
sufficiently appeared on the pages of this volume. Ignorance as to that fact is now nearly dispelled ; and to an
acquaintance with that book which makes wise unto
salvation must be attributed the best portions of that
theological literature which has passed under our review.
Nor should we fail to recognize also the gracious illumination of the Holy Spirit in leading media!val divines
into those paths of gospel truth wherein they walked to
their own peace and comfort, and to the profit of those
who followed their instructions. Every Christian student
of ecclesiastical history will be constrained to believe,
with 'thankfulness, that, in spite of errors and corruptions,
a Divine power has been at work in the successive ages
of Christendom. In the darkest of them all, lights of

358

General Review.

[PART IV.

truth and grace are seen kindled and kept alive in the
literature and the lives of Christ-like men; and does not
this fact clearly denote that the Spirit of God was present
and operative in all such cases? This volume does not
_ embrace the history of religion in the characters, achievements, endurance, and manifold virtues of eminent Christians, in whom were most visible "the fruits of the
Spirit ; " but the literature of the Church, which has been
only partially reviewed, bears witness to the operation of
the same agency. Works on devotional and practical
divinity, which do not come within our department of
study, meditations and prayers, liturgies and hymns,
and sermons and treatises on faith, hope, and love,
testify the existence of what has been called "the life of
God in the soul of man ; " and not a little of dogmatic
theology, touching the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, the responsibility and sinfulness of man, redemption through Christ, and the efficacy of Divine grace,
attests a spiritual illumination which comes from the
Father of lights.
7. The connection between theology and philosophy
in the Middle Ages has occupied much of our attention.
There is another point akin to this upon which we have
not touched, because it has not come directly in our
way, namely, the part which theologians took in scientific pursuits; but it here claims at least a passing remark.
Theology and science are often regarded as being in
irreconcilable opposition to each other; and no doubt
there was plenty of ignorant prejudice in the medi.eval
Church against free scientific investigation. We are
aware that Augustine, though he did not deny the
rotundity of the earth, asserted that there could be no
inhabitants at the antipodes, because such people are

A.D, 200- I 500,]

Theology ana Science.

359

not included in Scripture amongst Adam's descendants. 1
Virgil, Bishop of Salzburg, and Boniface, Archbishop of
Mentz, followed on the same side as the Bishop of Hippo.
There was no distinctness of ideas on scientific subjects.
Physical reasoning was neglected. Popular opinions ran,
with reference to nature, in strange and absurd directions. Mysticism blended itself even with arithmetic; but
still such science as there was fell into the hands of theologians, to be by them pursued with some ardour, if not
with much success. Upon the extent to which theologians applied themselves to scientific matters Wâ&#x201A;Ź prefer
using the words of one well qualified to speak on the
subject. "Gerbert in the tenth century went from
France to Spain to study astronomy with the Arabians,
and soon surpassed his masters. He is reported to have
fabricated clocks, and an astrolabe of peculiar construction. Gerbert afterwards, in the last year of the first
thousand from the birth of Christ, became pope by the
name of Sylvester II. Among other cultivators of the
sciences, some of whom, from their proficiency, must have
possessed with considerable clearness and steadiness the
elementary ideas on which it depends, we may here mention (after Montucla) Adelbold, whose work on the sphere
was addressed to Pope Sylvester, and whose geometrical
reasonings are, according to Montucla, vague and chimerical; Hermann Contractus, a monk of St. Gall, who in 1050
published astronomical works; William of Hirsaugen,
who followed this example in 1080; Robert of Lorraine,
who was made Bishop of Hereford by William the Conqueror in consequence of his astronomical knowledge.
In the next century Adelhard Goth, an Englishman,
travelled among the Arabs for purposes of study, as
1

Civ. Dez~ lib.

XVI.

c. 9.

General Review.

[PART IV.

Gerbert had done in the preceding age ; and on his return
translated the elements of Euclid, which he had brought
from Spain or Egypt. Robert Grossetete (or Grosseteste),
Bishop of Lincoln, was the author of an epitome on the
sphere. Roger Bacon, in his youth the contemporary of
Robert, and of his brother Adam Marsh, praises very
highly their knowledge in mathematics. 'And here,' says
the French historian of mathematics, whom I have followed in the preceding relation, 'It is impossible not to
reflect that all those men, who, if they did not augment
the treasure of the sciences, at least served to transmit it,
were monks, or had been such originally.' 'In the sciences
we should have had all to create, and at the moment when
the human mind should have emerged from its stupor
and shaken off its slumbers we should have been no more
advanced than the Greeks were after the taking ofTroy." 1
The services rendered to the interests of literature by
the theologians and religious men of the Middle Ages
are now acknowledged on all hands, and from what
has been just stated it appears that what they did for
the cause of science was not inconsiderable; certainly
the Franciscan friar, Roger Bacon, was a great scientific
light, anticipating in some of his enlarged views the deep
philosophical principles of his namesake. Much has
been said of the scientific progress of the Arabians in
the Middle Ages, and some have supposed that as
students of physical philosophy Mohammedans were far
ahead of Christians ; but Dr. Whewell questions, and
more than questions, " the higher claims which have
been advanced in favour of the Arabians. We can_
deliver no just decision unless we will consent to use the
terms of science in a strict and precise sense ; and if we
1

Wh~well's History of the Inductive Sciences, vol. I. p. 198.

A.D. 200---1500.J

Premonitions of Change.

do this we shall find little either in the particular discoveries or general processes of the Arabians which is
important in the history of the inductive sciences." 1
8. Finally, within our rapid' review we may fitly
embrace the premonitions of a great approaching change
which appear as we advance towards the sixteenth
century. At that period the practical corruptions of
Christendom were great and terrible. They were seen
and confessed by many who were zealous upholders of
the organic ecclesiastical system. Popes themselves
could not deny them, and councils assembled because
these corruptions were manifest, and they were forced to
~eek some remedy. If Christianity was to last and exercise much longer spiritual power in the world, reform
was essentially necessary. It became a question of life
or death. To any one who believes in the gospel, the
dismal condition of things a hundred years before the
Reformation contained in itself a mute prophecy that the
night was far spent and the day was at hand. The
promises and predictions of Scripture implied that a
change forÂˇ the better was inevitable. And in the
theology of those times there were indubitable signs of
its advance. The bright side of mysticism, the spiritual
religion which in such works as the Theologia Germanica
and the lmitatio Christi struggled to gain the ascendency
over rites and ceremonies, and all that is external, and
the ideas of reform expressed and advocated by Wycliffe,
Hus, Savonarola, and others, were unmistakeable heralds
of a brighter epoch. And, also, there were in the
current scholastic theology deeply-imbedded principles
of religious truth touching faith, grace, righteousness,
and love, w:hich, though buried under loads of superin1

History

if the inductive Sciences, vol.

I.

p. 257.

General Review.

[PART IV.

cumbent notions, that for a time checked their growth,
formed an "incorruptible seed which liveth and abideth
for ever." The Church theology might be said to have
had in it that which would certainly some time or other
break out with vital energy, and force its way through
all resistance to the surface, covering it with Divine
beauty and fruitfulness. Theology had never been so
corrupted as to have the doctrine of salvation by grace,
the doctrine of human responsibility, the doctrine of
Christian holiness, effaced from its literature. God was
there, _Christ was there, the Holy Spirit was there, the
atonement was there; faith was there, eternal life was
there. The pages of this manual present ample evidence
of it all. A distinction is to be made between the
actual life of Christendom and the theoretical divinity
of Christendom. The latter was vastly superior to the
former, and there lay hope for the future. The Church
still held views utterly inconsistent with its errors and
abuses ; those views, when redeveloped in their distinctness, could not but prove fatal to the errors and abuses
which gathered around them. Hence, when the Reformation came it proved a sifting time. There was a winnowing
on the Church's barn-floor, and the wheat was separated
from the chaff. Not chaff alone was there, but abundance
of wheat as well. The Reformers could find much truth
in Augustine, Anselm,'Bernard, Aquinas, and the rest,
which they were able to employ in conflict with the
Papacy, the system of supererogation and purgatory, the
merit of pilgrimages and ceremonial observances, and a
whole host of ecclesiastical and popular abuses. Whatever truth there was in scholastic divinity could well be
turned against its errors.

PART V.
FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
REFORMATION IN GERMANY TO THE
CONCLUSION OF IT IN ENGLAND.
A,D,

1518-1500,

CHAPTER I.
REFORMED THEOLOGY IN GERMANY AND SWITZERLAND.

W

have reviewed the history of theology during
successive ages of the Church. The.first of these
ages may be described as the age of ideal Christianity,
when the apostles were its inspired teachers, and revealed truth became partially and imperfectly realized
in the minds and lives of Christian professors. The
second was an age of innovation, when practices and
opinions were introduced involving departures from the
primitive model. During the third, extending from the
Nica:an era to the middle of the eighth century, these
innovations developed themselves into bolder forms.
And in the fourth they hardened into stereotyped
traditionalism, which lasted to the fourth Council of the
Lateran. Then,fifth01, an age of agitation and reaction
commenced, and went on till the period of reformation.
Theology underwent corresponding changes. We
have endeavoureq_ to trace them, and now we reach the
crisis, when an attempt was made to exhibit the Divine
ideal in its primitive form, and by it to test the whole
sum of religious opinion. At the Diet of Worms Luther
appealed to the Bible, saying, " Here I take my stand ;
God help me." The whole Reformation was there.
A number of causes contributed to produce the
Reformation in Europe, especially as it regards eccleE

Reformed Tlteology.

[PART V.

siastical governments and the relation m which they
stood to the civil power. There were also particular
local circumstances in connection with Church property
and foreign politics which contributed to shape organic
social changes in England and Scotland. Moreover, in
France court intrigues, aristocratic rivalries, dynastic
struggles, and other similar movements served to shape
to some extent the course of religious events; but it
remains true, in relation to theology, that whilst extraneous incidents were not without some effect in the formation of Protestant opinions, their main impulse and
guide and determining power will be found in the study
of the Scriptures. First, the sacred records came to be
studied in the original as a result of the revived study of
Greek and Hebrew learning, aided by habits and tastes
which sprung out of the critical spirit cultivated by
classical scholars ; 1 and secondly, these records were
translated into the living languages of Europe, and such
translations, through the invention of printing, were
brought within the reach of people in general. Thus an
appeal was made to private judgment-the terror of
Popery, and the strength of Protestantism. The. right of
prfvate judgment,-where it was not abstractedly maintained, or where it was inconsistently advocated, or
whereÂˇ it was restricted and modified by remaining
ecclesiastical authority, and by natural influence of a
clerical kind,-came into forcible operation, and that on
a very extensive scale, whence followed in the main
that overthrow of old opinions, and that establishment
of new ones, which make the sixteenth century a marvel
in the intellectual history of mankind.
1 This subject is too large to be taken up here, There is a good
chapter respecting it in Matter's Hist. du Christ., vol. rv. c. 2.

A.D.

1518-1560.]

Erasmus and Luther.

Our business in studying its history is confined to
the theological developments of the epoch, and it will be
our duty to trace the characteristic doctrines of various
Protestant divines. We shall take a rapid survey of
them as expressed in Germany, Switzerland, France,
Scotland, and England.
Germany first requires our attention. The writings of
Reuchlin and Hutten had prepared the way for the
reforming movement. Biblical erudition, pungent satire,
expositions of Scripture, and attacks on existing corruptions obviously contributed to results far beyond the
anticipation of certain scholars. Most active in the new
direction amongst them, Erasmus stands pre-eminent as
a commentator on the New Testament, and as an assailant of monkish ignorance and popular superstitions.
But after Erasmus had led on an attack, which Luther
commended '.and helped, the two men before long
seriously differed from each other.
We shall best exhibit the prominent features of the
reformed theology of Germany by a review of the controversy with regard to Divine grace and the human
will, and the doctrine of Luther on justification. For
grace and justification were the main points in discussion between the Romanists and the Reformed in
Germany as elsewhere. The ancient creeds were accepted by both parties. The Trinity of the Godhead,
the atonement of Christ, as taught by Anselm and other
schoolmen, were not matters in dispute between them.
Ecclesiastical systems produced the widest differences
and the most violent discussions. Rites and ceremonies,
sacraments and priestly claims, the merit and intercession of saints, purgatory, indulgences, and absolution,
these were subjects of keenest debate; but here we have

368

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

to do with doctrinal theology alone, and in this department of belief the two grand moot-points were those we
have now indicated.
We commep.ce by noticing the controversy between
LUTHER (A.D. 1483-1546) and ERASMUS (A.D. 1467I 536) as to Divine grace and the human will.
Erasmus took up the cause of reformation on the
literary, intellectual, and moral side. He had no sympathy with the spiritual earnestness of Martin Luther,
and his religious life was quite of another description.
He could not enter into the conflicts which agitated the
Reformer, had no sense of sin, no convictions of the
need of grace for the saving of the soul, such as Luther
felt. Erasmus had much in common with Pelagius ; he
was a man of a similar religious stamp. He admits, in his
book entitled DeLiberoArbitrio, published in 1525,that
Pelagius had carried his notion of liberty too far, but he
speaks of him with moderation and sympathy. He thinks
that Pelagius might have redeemed himself by the help
of clearer theological distinctions, but he appears throughout to agree in the main with the Semi-Pelagians before
his time and with the Remonstrants afterwards. 1
Âˇ Erasmus had been nettled by a letter which Luther
wrote to him containing rude personal remarks ; even
speaking of "his imbecility." Some objectionable observations by Luther on the human will, to the effect
that its freedom was a figment, and that all things happened by necessity, further roused the scholar's ire, and
the result was the famous treatise on free will. Erasmus
was more of a dilettante litterateur than either a skilful
scholastic or a profound divine.
He had far more
learning, and far less intellectual and moral force, than
1

Opera, tom. x. col.

1502 ;

Jortin's Life ofErasmus, vol. II. p. 270.

Erasmus.

A.D. 1518-1560.]

his great antagonist. His treatise is wordy, diffuse, and
much employed in personalities. "The question might
have been discussed, and the doctrine of Divine assistance, conditional decrees, and human liberty established
in a smaller compass." 1
Erasmus speaks of the power of the will as that by
Âˇ virtue of which it can turn itself to righteousness and
eternal life, or. turn itself away from these infinitely
desirable blessings. He does not mean simply that man
has a susceptibility for what is really good, but that he
has the power of producing it out of himself. This goes
to the heart of the question, Where lies the turning-point
of salvation,-with man's will or God's grace? Erasmus
said, " Man has two arms, one for good, the other for
evil; Luther cuts off the right, and leaves only the left.
vVithout free will there is no sin, no guilt, no righteousness in punishment, and the aim of exhortations and
warnings is done away with." He saw clearly that free
agency is essential to human responsibility, that Scripture
treats man as a free agent, and that humati consciousness
testifies to the fact of human liberty. Erasmus was
invulnerable and irresistible on that point. But he was
one-sided, and had no just conception of the mischief
done to man's moral nature by sin, of the alienation of
the human mind in its unregenerate state from the love
and service of a holy God.
Where Erasmus was weak, Luther was strong. The
parallel between Luther and Augustine is as striking as
the parallel between Erasmus and Pelagius. His spiritual
conflicts _with sin, and his inward consciousness of the
impossibility of self-redemption, furnish the key to his
theology, and for his theology a preparation had been
1

Jortin, vol. II. p. 271.
B B

37Â°

Reformed Theology.

[PART V,

made by his previous studies. Occam had been his
favourite master in philosophy, and Gerson, Bernard, and
Tauler had helped him in divinity. Amongst the Fathers
Augustine inspired his reverence and affection ; and
amongst the causes which led to his ultimate conclusions
we must not lose sight of his conflict with Tetzel, and the
horror he felt at the system of Papal indulgences in connection with the doctrine of human merit. An abstract
denial of the freedom of the will was not his startingpoint, it was not his primary postulate.
He felt it
forced upon him by previous notions of Divine grace.
In every age of religious revival there is " a powerful
emphasizing of absolute dependence on God." St. Paul
is felt to be the true exponent of man's wants, the clearest
revealer of the needed supply. It is remarkable how
reformers and revivalists lay hold on the skirts of the
apostle who said, " By the grace of God I am what
I am."
The monk of Wittenberg starts from the fact that
the greatest saints have, in their temptations, forgotten
the freedom of the will, even though they held it in
theory. And it is a fact that amidst all spiritual ex_dtement man forgets himself, and is lost in God. He
does so in prayer, in penitential sorrow, in rapturous
joy. The Divine is felt _overmastering the human. The
hymns of the Church, in all diversities of creeds, illustrate this. No hymns can be more self-abnegatory,
more God-exalting and glorifying, than the hymns of
"the people called Methodists," who believe fully in free
will.
"If I felt," says Luther," that my salvation depended
on my own freedom of choice, I should be as one that
beats the air. But since God has taken my salvation

A,D. 1518-156o.]

Luther.

37 1

into His own hands, I am certain of His faithfulness
and His promise. What an anxious life it would be
if we could only comfort ourselves with the assurance
of grace when we _had fulfilled 'the law-for who does
that?" 1
The doctrine of election our German Reformer regards as the objective complement of the assurance of
salvation. The latter is perfect only when resting on
the counsels of grace, which are eternal, unchanging, and
omnipotently decisive.
The strength and kernel of his treatise De servo
Arbitrio, published immediately after the work by
Erasmus, is found in a firm adherence to the teaching
of St. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and to the
Galatians. From the righteousness of faith, Luther said,
there flow peace and liberation from the bondage of
the law. "Paul soars above time, and ad0ringly engrosses himself in the Divine counsel, which marches,
without wavering, through all the stages, from the calling
to the glory of the justified; in order then, in the joyous
consciousness of a personality hid in God, to break into
the lofty song of triumph (Rom. viii. 32)."
Augustine rejoiced in redemption wrought by grace,
as securing the noblest freedom-even a liberty to obey,
to love, and to enjoy God. Luther did the same. If
Erasmus made man richer in freedom at first, Luther
made him richer in freedom at last. Luther's conception
of freedom through grace is that of a Divine freedom
-a freedom from sin in holiness. The redeemed and
1 The most thorough investigation of Luther's opinions, as well
as the whole story of his life according to the latest researche5,
will be found in Kostlin's M arti'n Luther, sein Leben und seine
Schriften; 2 vols.
Âˇ

BÂˇB 2

372

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

sanctified will, according to his theory, has a bent
towards what is true and right and good.
Erasmus was one-sided; so was Luther. He did
not look as he ought to have done to human responsibility and to Divine justice. In advocating the cause of
God's grace he sometimes imperilled the cause of God's
righteousness. If all men were saved the case would be
different ; but as some men are lost through sin, how
can their perdition be vindicated on grounds of Divine
righteousness if man be not responsible, and how can
he be responsible if he be not free? As Luther at times
put his doctrine ~f the bondage of the will, he really
reduced man to a machine, he made sin a necessity.
Where then could be its guilt ? And if sin in man did
not carry with it personal demerit, then what becomes of
salvation? What reality is there in that? If man be
not truly a sinner, how can he be truly saved ? And if
notÂˇ truly saved, where is God's love? If man be lost
through sin, and he cannot help it, where is God's righteousness in his punishment? These questions were
pressed home on Luther, and they puzzled him. In
meeting them he got entangled in logical confusions
and contradictions. Metaphysical notions of bondage
and freedom led him astray; but deep spiritual instincts
counteracted the effect of those notions. He says
neither the human will nor the Divine will does anything by compulsion, only by inclination; yet he distinguishes between the two kinds of will most broadly
by saying, "In free will lies a Divine power which no
creature has in himself, and no one ought to bear this
name but the Divine Majesty." In support of the statement that man does ever that to which God determines
him by personal inclination, he says, " God moves every

A.D. 1518-1560.]

Lut!ter.

373

power according to its nature." 1 Again, whilst maintaining the doctrine of Divine predestination, he insists
upon the universality of Divine love; also, he admits
the possibility of apostasy on the part of those who are
subjects of grace. This surely is inconsistent with his
doctrine of the will, for here the will of man appears
defeating the will of God.
â&#x20AC;˘
We now proceed to notice the teaching of Luther
relative to the doctrine of justification. In Luther's
case pre-eminently the reformed faith was reached
through spiritual conflict. Not by rote, not from man,
not through hard criticism, but by the discipline of a
troubled conscience and the devout study of the Scriptures he came to see the truth on this subject. Tarrying
in the city of Rome, whilst he was still filled with ignorance and superstition, even when crawling up Pilate's
Staircase with the hope of a Papal indulgence, words of
inspiration-" the just shall live by faith"-burst out upon
his soul like the sun from the clouds on a stormy day.
It is to be remembered that he had studied the Bible
at Erfurt. On such a mind as his particular passages
would fix themselves. This one from Habakkuk and
St. Paul had since then often impressed him ; now it
came home fresh as light from heaven. But it did
not shine steadily, for this occurrence belongs to the
year I 5 10; not till afterwards did he distinctly bring
1

out his doctrine of justification, and when he first proclaimed it he scarcely saw the consequences to which it
would lead. His doctrine came partly as a revulsion
from Papal dogmas and Papal doings.
The manner in which the dogma of human merit
was taught in the schools we have already shown. With
this the efficacy of penance had been connected and
strenuously urged. The opus operatum of sacraments
was also a scholastic doctrine and a popular belief.
Virtue became attached to pilgrimages, and to the
intercessions of saints, whose shrines were frequented.
And the sale of indulgences was the crown of all these
errors and abuses. Luther, as he contemplated such
things, was driven to seek from the Word of God a true
and effectual way of salvation. After much study of the
sacred oracles, his standpoint was not so much the exact
nature of what he called justification, as the faith which
secured it-faith as opposed to merit. In describing
faith he attacked the doctrine of jides formata, or faith
which is perfected by charity and good works ; for that
doctrine, he said, confounds works and faith together.
It is from his views of justifying faith that the Protestant distinction between being made personally just or
righteous, and the being accounted and treated as such,
necessarily results. 1
The impulsiveness of Luther's nature was such that,
as might be expected, in his strenuous advocacy of
justification by faith, as opposed to justification by
merit, he dealt sometimes in unguarded language, open
to misconception. There are statements in his works
1 For views of Luther' s opinions, and for references to his works,
see Bishop Harold Browne On the Thirty-nine Articles : 'J ustification.' See also Homes and Haunts of Luther, Religious Tract
Society.

A.D. 1518-1500.]

Melancthon.

375

on this subject which cannot be vindicated, but, at the
same time, it would be unfair to charge him with being
a teacher of Antinomianism, for no one, whilst denying
the merit of good works, could-more vigorously enforce
their necessity than he was wont to do, 1
MELANCTHON (A.D. 1497-156o) is commonly styled
the secretary of the Reformation ; being more of a scholar,
more of a scientific divine, and more of a cautious
thinker than his illustrious friend. He took moderate
views of most subjects, and sought to mediate between
the two parties in theological conflict. But his sympathies
were decidedly in favour of the reformed doctrines,
and his opinions respecting them may be seen in his
Loci' Communes or "Theological Common places ; " in The
A ugsburg Con/ession ,- and in the Apologia A ugustantl!,
the apology for it, which forms one of the symbolic
books of the Lutheran Church.
In the first of. these, the Loci Communes, he says
that salvation includes the forgiveness of sin, our recon1 The charge of Antinomianism brought against Luther is ably
met by Hare in his VindÂŁcation. The following passage in Bell's
translation of Luther's Table Talk, p. 208, is worthy of notice: "Philip
Melancthon said to Luther, 'The opinion of St. Austin of justification (as it seemeth) was more pertinent, and fit, and convenient
when he disputed not, than when he used to speak and dispute ; for
this he saith we ought to hold, that we are justified by faith, that
is, by our regeneration, or being made new creatures. Now if it b.i:
so, then we are not justified only by faith, but by all the gifts and
virtues of God given to us. Now what is your opinion, sir? Do
you hold that a man is justified by this regeneration, as is St.
Austin's opinion?' Luther answered and said, 'I hold this, and
am certa,in that the true meaning of the gospel and of the apostle
is that we are justified before God gratis, for nothing, only by
God's mere mercy, wherewith and by reason whereof He imputeth
righteousness unto us in Christ.' "

Reformed Theology.

376

[PART V.

ciliation, and our justification before God. These blessings, which he does not confound with holiness and
good works,-the treatment of that subject follows ort a
distinct division,-he says are not dependent on fulfilling the law, but are on us freely bestowed through
the meritorious sacrifice of Christ, who gave Himself a
propitiation for our sins. 1
In the Augsburg Confession, which is very long,
the doctrine of Augustine as to free will is adopted at
considerable length in his own words, and Pelagianism
is condemned. And it is affirmed that works cannot
reconcile us to God or merit forgiveness, and that justification comes from believing in Christ (which truth is
pronounced in the second part of the Confession to be
"the principal part of the gospel"). Men are justified
first, it is said, "for Christ's sake when they believe
that they are received into favour and their sins forgiven
for Christ's sake, who by His death hath satisfied for our
sins. This faith doth God impute for righteousness
before Him." 2 But good works, it is declared, are
necessary "because it is God's will, and not in any
confidence of meriting justification." 3 The Confession
especially in its earliest form, reflected the evangelical
views of both Luther and Melancthon, and exerted a
powerful influence throughout Germany. It became the
standard of orthodoxy in all the Lutheran Churches,whether in Germany, or in Sweden, Denmark, and
Norway,- and was adopted by some other reformed
communities. It is the doctrinal creed of the Moravian
Brethren ; it influenced the theology of other countrie.s
than those which made it their symbol ; and the effect
2

1 Sect. On the Gospel.
First part, Art. Iv.

3

Art. VI.

A.D. 1518-156o.]

Melancthon.

377

of it may be traced in the Articles of the Church of Âˇ
England.
It must here be added, and it is the more important
because the fact is often overlooÂˇked, that the Augsburg
Confession underwent changes more or less important,
_as revised by Melancthon, between A.D. 1530 and 1540.
Our references are to the Confession of 15 30. The last
edition indicates changes in the theological views of
the author. "He gave, upon the one hand, his views
on absolute predestination, and gradually adopted the
synergistic theory (which brought him nearer to the
Roman Catholic system) ; while, on the other hand
(departing further from Romanism and approaching
nearer to the Reformed Church), he modified the
Lutheran theory of the real presence at least so far as
to allow the reformed doctrin; the same right in the
evangelical Churches. He never liked the Zwinglian
view of a symbolical presence, nor did he openly adopt
the Calvinistic view of a spiritual real presence, but he
inclined to it, and regarded the difference between this
and the L~theran view as no bar to Christian fellowship
and Church communion." 1 It is in the form it bore at
Augsburg in 1530-the text invariata, as it is calledthat our references are made ; the text variata, as it is
termed,-evidently framed to promote union amongst
Protestants, an object very dear to Melancthon,-was,
however, accepted by the Lutherans, notwithstanding
its important variations from the original symbol.
In the Apology Melancthon clearly distinguishes
1 Schaff's Hist. of the Creeds of Christendom, p. 240.
In the
Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches Dr. Schaff gives the
text of I 530, but not the text of I 540, though he indicates where
variations occur.

378

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

between justification and holiness, and defines the former
word used by the Apostle Paul in Romans v. 1 as bearing a forensic sense, signifying to absolve and pronounce
just on account of the righteousness of another, even
Jesus Christ, which righteousness is communicated to us
through our faith. But at the same time Melancthon
guards against the idea of a mere external privilege ; for
he insists upon the vital nature of faith, which appropriates the benefits secured by Christ, and precedes the
fulfilment of the law in us. Sometimes, even, he seems
to forget his own definition of justification in his eager
inculcation of holiness through faith. 1
Luther and Melancthon did a great work by letting
in the breeze of heaven upon the Church's barn-floor, so
as to fan the accumulated heaps of theology, and to
begin the needed process of separating the wheat from
the chaff. They found much in the Fathers and the
schoolmen worth preserving, but they also found a vast
deal which was worthless, and a large part of it they
swept away. The mystics had done something to make
straight the path for these great German Reformers, and
now the latter accomplished what their predecessors were
not in a position to effect. There was a mystic element
in the mind of Luther which sometimes comes out in
his writings, but generally it is under the control of practical wisdom, or what Englishmen call common sense.
1 It may here be observed that the Reformation in Germany was
largely promoted by hymnology. This was, in fact, the cultivation
of simple Christian piety apart from controversial discussions.
Roman Catholics, on their side, published vernacular hymn books.
With regard to one dated Leipsic, I 537, Burton, in his Hist. of
Scotland, vol. VI. p. 5, remarks, " One might read a consi.:lerable
portion of this collection without noting the marks which appropriate it to a school opposite from that of the Lutheran hyrr,ns."

A.D. 1518-1560.]

Luther and Melancthon.

379

Mystical thoughts had no attraction for the clear, bright,
sharp intellect of Melancthon, and this fact suggests a
further comparison between the two friends.
Their natural idiosyncrasies little resembled each
other. There was strength and there was beauty in
them both, but the relations of the two qualities varied.
In Luther there was beauty, like flowers and fountains
in the clefts of rocks ; but strength was predominantmassive, bold, rugged. In Melancthon there was strength,
as in the palm rising heavenward; but beauty, like
the gracefully-expanding leaves at the crown of that
southern tree, was in him most conspicuous-beauty
of mind, of culture, of disposition, of character. The
spiritual qualities of each corresponded with native
endowments. Both were men of faith and love. There
was love in the heart of Luther for home, for Christ,
for His people, for His cause; but faith is the spiritual
quality in his life which strikes us above all beside.
"The just shall live by faith" is a passage of Scripture
bound up with his history. It filled his mind at Erfurt
when a monk ; at Rome when climbing Pilate's Staircase; and at Wittenberg during his after life as preacher,
author, and private Christian. Wonderfully did his faith
appear when, after interceding for Melancthon during
his illness, he seized him by the hand, and exclaimed,
"Be of good courage, Philip; you shall not die." At the
root of all his courage at Worms, and elsewhere, there
lay the same secret as in the case of Moses-" he endured
as seeing Him who is invisible." And faith made him
pure and patient in his domestic relations, and inspired
him amidst his toils and troubles with faith and joy,
and made him more than conqueror over death, as he
had been conqueror over the world and sm. Few dying

380

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

chambers have been more illumined by a calm, bright
faith than the one in the old town of Eisleben, where he
was born and where he expired. " I know that I shall
abide eternally with Thee. Into Thy hands I commend
my spirit. Thou hast redeemed me, 0 Lord God of
truth." And there was faith in the heart and life of
Melancthon, clear and bright. He saw God's truth with
a rare distinctness of conception, and walked in the
light. But love shone above everything in his character
and conduct. He was the peacemaker of the Reformation, ever seeking to moderate, to conciliate, to unite.
He might go too far sometimes in that direction, but
"e'en the light that led astray was light from heaven."
And the man who sought to bind together professors
of different creeds and members of different communions was filled with home affection and neighbourly
charity. Appropriate are the words inscribed under a
likeness taken after death hanging in the room at Wittenberg where he died : " From this mortal life to the
eternal God, and the society of the saints, he holily and
placidly departed, in the sixty-third year of his age."
His last words were, "No one shall pluck My sheep out
of My hands."
Comparisons beween these two have been elaborately
made. Perhaps nothing on the subject is better than
what Luther said himself: "I was born for struggling
on the field of battle with parties and devils. There
it is that my writings breathe war and tempest. I must
root up stock and stem, clear away thorns and brambles,
and fill up swamps and sloughs. I am like a sturdy
wood-cutter, who must clear and level the road. But
master of arts, Philip, goes forward quietly and gently,
cultivating and planting, sowing and watering joyfully,

A.D. 1518-1560.]

Osiander.

according as God has dealt to him so liberally His
gifts."
We just now touched upon the mystical element'
as preparing for the Reformation.' The part played by
it in the fourteenth century was on the whole beneficial. It was otherwise afterwards. Prophets of Zwickau,
and others who plunged into all sorts of wild mystic
fancies not worth description, were a sore trouble to
Martin Luther, and seriously hindered his work. What
was helped by the mystic two centuries earlier was
hindered and imperilled by him now. "In that huge
ship of the Church ecclesiastic which all true hearts and
hands in those troublous times were concerned to work
to their very best, a new code of regulations had been
issued. Such ;ule came in with Luther. Now some
of those who would have been among the best sailors
under the old management proved useless or worse than
useless under the new. One set of them were insolent
and mutinous-had a way of reviling the captain in
strange gibberish, and the most insane tendency to look
into the powder-room with a light. Another class lay
about useless, till, having been tumbled over many times
by their more active comrades~ they got kicked into
corners, whence they were never more to emerge." 1
We must now return to glance for a moment at the
modifications of Lutheranism after the Reformer's death
in 1546.
OSIANDER (born 1498), who is ranked amongst
Lutheran divines, taught that justification is not a
forensic act, acqu_itting men from liability to punishment,
but a gracious operation producing holiness. Thus he
fell back on the mediceval dogma. "Legal justification
1
Vaughan's Hours with the Mystics, vol. n. p. 36.

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

through the imputed righteousness of Christ he would
denominate redemption, and this he supposed always
preceded what he called justification. The mode of
justification, in his sense of the term, he supposed to be
the indwelling of Christ in the soul, producing there a
moral change." 1
SWECKENFIELD, another Lutheran divine, maintained that there was a tendency in the great Reformer's
teaching to mislead Christians on this subject. He
admitted in a certain sense the truth of his doctrine
respecting faith and good works, but he thought it
might be perverted so as to induce a mere verbal faith,
and to lead to a life of moral indifference. 2 But this
was an objection to the form rather than the essence of
Luther's teaching, and to the perversion rather than the
correct apprehension of his doctrines. As to mere verbal
faith and moral indifference, Luther opposed them as
decidedly as Sweckenfield.
Several doctrinal controversies arose among the
Lutherans besides those just noticed. The following
list of them is supplied by Hagenbach:
" The Antinomian Controversy; it originated with
John Agricola of Eisleben (from the year 1536 he was
professor in the university of Wittenberg), during
Luther's lifetime. Comp. Elwert, de Antinomid :J.
Agricola! Islebii. Tur. 1836.
"The Adiaphoristic Controversy, which had its origin
in the interim of Leipsic (from the year. 1548), and gave
rise to a lasting difference between the more moderate
view of Philip Melancthon and the mo~e rigid doctrines
of the orthodox Lutherans. The former view was
1
2

represented by the university of Wittenberg, the latter
by that of Jena. This difference manifested itself
especially in
"The Controversy between Geo~ge Major and Nicholas
A msdoif, concerning the question whether good works
are necessary to salvation, or whether they possess rather
a dangerous tendency: (about the year 1559). This controversy was connected with the two following, viz." The Synergistic Controversy, respecting the relation
in which human liberty stands to Divine grace; it was
called forth (A.D. 1555) by the treatise of John Pfeffinger,
De libero Arbitrio, which was combated by Amsdorf.
"The Controversy respecting the nature of original sin,
between Victorin Strigel (in Jena) and Matthias Flacius.
It commenced A.D. 1560, and led to the disputation of
Weimar, A.D. 1561. About the same time a controversy
was carried on in Prussia, viz." The Controversy between Andrew Osz"ander (in
Konigsberg) and Yoachim Morfin, Francis Stancarus,
etc. It bore upon the relation in which justification
stands to sanctification, and to the main point in the
work of redemption. Comp. Tholuck, Literarischer
Anzezger, 1833, No. 54 seq.
"The Crypto Calvinistic Controversy concerning the
Lord's Supper-in the Palatinate (1559), in Bremen
(1561), and in Saxony." 1
1

Hagenbach, vol. n. p.

162.

CHAPTER II.

REFORMED THEOLOGY IN SWITZERLAND.

W

E shall best represent the forms which theology
there assumed by indicating the opinions expressed by Ulrich Zwingli, and the conclusions reached
in the Helvetic Confessions.
ULRICH ZWINGLI (A.D. 1484- 1531) was a very
different man from Martin Luther, and this must be
taken into account in order to a correct apprehension of
his theology. "That joyous heart, of which his cheerful
countenance was the unfailing index, had been wellnigh unacquainted with the spiritual tempests in which
Luther learned to fathom the abyss of human depravity
and tested the victorious power of faith; and therefore
what the Saxon friar undertook as the result of holy
impulses and spiritual intuitions, the Swiss clergyman
was rather aiming to achieve by the employment of his
critical and reasoning faculties." 1
But in Zwingli's case, no less than in Luther's, reformed
theology came as a result of Scripture study under the
guidance of modern criticism. No one could have more
profound convictions of the authority and sufficiency of
the Bible,-which he sedulously studied in the original
Hebrew and Greek, with the advantages of a riper scholarship-than was possessed by Luther's Swiss contemporary.
He had studied classical philosophy at Rome, physical
science at Vienna, and systems of theology at Basle. The
1

Hardwick, Reformation, p. r 12.

A.D.

1518-1560.]

Zwingli.

Word of God carried with it, in his apprehension, its own
evidence, and could be rejected, he thought, only by a
vitiated mind. "It is perfect in itself, and revealed for
the welfare of man, but he who neither loves it, nor understands it, nor will receive it, is morally sick." 1 Sin is a
subject on which he wrote a treatise entitled Declaratio
de Peccato Originali; 2 and from this work and other
writings it appears that he did not adopt the Augustinian
theory, but believed that whilst the contagion of evil
extended to all, its damnatory consequences were removed
-certainly in the case of the children of believers, probably also in the case of others. He denied that original
sin is anything more than a moral disease, or a condition
obnoxious to death. Sin, properly speaking, is wickedness, turpitude, crime ; and the action of the will is
essential to all kinds of individual guilt. 3 Infants without
exception, dying before the commission of actual sin,
were in his estimation admitted to the kingdom of
heaven. 4 He believed in predestination, but in doing
so he followed a different line of thought from Augustine and from Luther; and, though quoting Scripture to
show that God elected men to salvation, and bestows on
them the gift of faith, he seems to have been a kind
of philosophical N ecessitarian, and to have proceeded
somewhat on speculative grounds. 5 He did not take a
limited view of the atonement ; indeed he went so far
as to say, " If the question be put, Did Christ restore_
the whole human family, or only the Church of believers?
1

I might shortly answer, Christ has brought by His
salvation as much good into the world as Adam by his
sinning brought evil." His idea was that the efficacy of
Christ's work extended beyond those who actually
believe; and not only to infants incapable of faith, but
also to virtuous heathen who never heard the gospel.
The latter he included amongst the elect.1 But though
he differed in these and some other respects from con-Âˇ
temporary as well as ancient divines, no one could
more zealously extol the riches of Divine grace, more
distinctly trace up to it the salvation of men, or more
clearly attribute the enjoyment of justification to the
exercise of faith. 2
Zwingli's treatise on True and False Religion consists
of twenty-nine chapters, and goes over rather wide
ground. Some of the headings are very general: such
as concerning God, concerning man, concerning religion,
concerning the gospel. Several are ecclesiastical rather
than doctrinal : concerning the keys, concerning the
Church, concerning matrimony, baptism, the eucharist,
etc. He closes with a chapter on statues and images.
There is no attempt in this book at scientific order. It
presents neither in form nor substance a syste~ of
divinity.
Every reader of eccl~siastical history knows that
Zwingli was a man of eminent Christian piety, and they
are also aware of some of its leading elements. It was
pervaded by a lofty and noble spirit, which Myconius, his
1
Several passages to this effect might be cited. See Opera, vol.
II. 371, 559â&#x20AC;˘
2 There is a beautiful evangelical strain in his chap. De Peccato
in De Vera et Falra Religione-Opera, vol. III. 203. Also see chap.
Evangelium, p. r9r. See also Christoffel's Life of Zwinglt; p. 392
et seq.

A.D. 1518-156o.)

Zwingli.

friend, connected with the Reformer's early life amidst
the Alpine solitudes of Wildhaus, has well described.
" I have often thought,'' he says, "that, brought nearer
to heaven on those sublime heights, he contracted in
them something celestial and Divine." His evangelical
fervour bursts out in the oft-quoted passage from one of
his sermons : " It is to Christ that I desire to lead you, to
Christ, the true source of salvation. His Divine \Vord is
the only aliment I purpose offering you for your lives
and your hearts." Âˇ His love for the Scriptures is worldknown. He translated them, and commented on them,
and found in them food for his own soul. The plaintive,
melancholy side of his character comes out in his
remark, but too prophetic, on what he saw one evening
in the heavens. "Yonder fatal star pas come to light
the pathway to my tomb. It bespeaks my end, and that
of many an honest man beside. It is true I am shortsighted, but I can see a host of calamities in the future.
The cause of truth and the Church of God will be
threatened, but Christ will never forsake us." The
general character of Zwingli-who was a self-sacrificing
patriot, and who died on the battle-field, not.fighting for
his country, but attending, chaplain-like, on her troopsis not so well known. " He ate and drank with all who
invited him, and despised no man ; he was full of compassion for the poor ; always firm and always cheerful,
alike in good and bad fortune; no trouble appalled him ;
his words were always full of courage, and his spirit
cheerful and comforting." Above all, the story of his
home life is beautiful. His romantic marriage, his tender
affection Âˇfor his wife and children, and his domestic
habits, form a most grateful episode amidst the story of
his labours, controversies, and trials. "The Lord keep
CC 2

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

thee ; may we soon meet again, thou soul of my soul,
thy host and husband, Ulrich Zwingli." So ends one of
his letters to his wife.
From the writings of Zwingli we pass on to the
Helvetic Confessions, the first belonging to A.D. 1536,
the second to 1566. There is a great difference between
them in point of extent : the first consists of twenty-eight
articles succinctly expressed, the second of thirty articles
expanded into a lengthy treatise.
They both set out with a distinct recognition of
canonical Scripture as containing the perfect rule of faith
and practice ; and the second Confession, whilst largely
amplifying the position in the first, adds a denunciation
against ancient heretics who denied the inspiration or
corrupted the contents of the sacred writings. The
authoritative interpretation of Holy Writ by fathers,
councils, and ecclesiastical tradition is most decidedly
rejected. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is laid
down ; and Zwingli's doctrine of the freedom of the
will is asserted briefly in the ninth article of the first
Confession, very elaborately in the ninth article of the
second. The tenth article in the former instance only
exhibits the counsel of God respecting the recovery of
man in a few general words, but the tenth article in the
latter is a full exposition of predestination by God and
His election of the saints. The short fourteenth article
of the earlier document concerning faith is in the fifteenth
of the latter expanded into a statement of the true justification of believers, to whom God imputes the righteousness of Christ, and who are not only cleansed from thdr
sins, but are made holy, and, being absolved from condemnation, they become heirs of eternal life. The last
fourteen articles of the two Confessions treat of questions_

A.D. 1518-1560.]

Bullinger.

touching the Church, the ministry, the sacraments, Divine
worship,ecclesiastical property, magistracy, and marriage;
upon these points the Latin Confession is as full as it is
upon those we have just noticed. 1Âˇ
HENRY BULLINGER (A.D. I 504-1577)-first a disciple
and friend of Zwingli, then, after the death of the first
Swiss Reformer ( I 53 I), the chief pastor of Z ii rich, and the
leader of the Reformation-was the author of the second
Helvetic Confession. He came under the influence of
Calvin's teaching, and this Confession from his pen is
substantially Calvinistic; but an endeavour to soften the
harsh features of the Genevan theology in reference to
Divine predestination and influence is very obvious.
Helvetian theologians went great lengths on the
subject of inspiration. Luther rejected the verbal theory,
and the symbolical books of the Lutheran communion
are silent on the subject. Calvin and others entertained
moderate views regarding it ; but in Switzerland the
controversy proceeded so far that no candidate could be
admitted to ordination without professing his belief in
the Divine authority of the printed Hebrew text. 2
At the same time it is remarkable that a Helvetic
divine, Curio Ccelius Secundus, published in Basle, I 554, a
treatise entitled De A mplitudine beati Regni Dei, which,
though not decidedly in favour of universal restoration,
points that way, contrary to what had been, and still was,
the general opinion of Christendom. The Protestant
and Catholic Churches generally held the doctrine of
future everlasting punishment.
The two Confessions are printed in Schaff's Creeds of tlte
Evangelical Protestant Clzurcltes, p. 21 I et seq.
2 Formula Consensus, etc., canon II,
1

39Â°

CHAPTER III.

REFORMED THEOLOGY IN FRANCE AND SCOTLAND.

I

N taking up the reformed theology of France, we
must confine ourselves to the writings of JOHN
CALVIN, a Picard of Noyon (1509-1564), undoubtedly
the greatest theologian of his age ; the head of the
reformed Church of Geneva, the guide of French Protestants, and, to a large extent, the moulder of Puritan
opinion in Great Britain.
At once we are struck with the manifest difference between Martin Luther and John Calvin. Like the former,
indeed, the latter was a man of deep spiritual experience.
At the outset he says of himself, " I was very far from
having a conscience perfectly tranquil. Every time I
went down into myself, or raised my heart to God, so
extreme a horror fell upon me that no purifications, no
satisfactions could cure me of it ; and the more closely
I considered myself, the sharper were the goads which
pressed my conscience, so that there remained to me
no other comfort than to deceive myself by forgetting myself." He earlier and more easily obtained
peace than did his German contemporary; but the
current of his spiritual life soon mingled with his intellectual disposition. "Having therefore acquired some
taste and knowledge of true piety, I was immediately
inflamed with so great a desire to profit, that albeit I
did not wholly abandon other studies, I somewhat

Calvin.

A.D. 1518-1560.]

39 1

relaxed my zeal for them." 1 Between Luther and
Calvin these differences appear : the latter had the more
comprehensive intellect of the two; though less impulsive and heroic in action, he was more systematic in
his habits of thought, not merely bringing to the front
strong points, like the former, but working out his opinions
in an orderly and harmonious whole, which Luther did
not and could not do. Calvin was the more learned
and accomplished man of the two ; he used language
with greater precision, and had at command a less
energetic and incisive, but a more rich, varied, and
flowing style of diction. Throughout his genius as a
Frenchman, and his education as a lawyer, should be
kept in view.
His Institutes form the magnum opus of his life, first
published in French in 1535, then in Latin the following
year; a second and main edition appeared in 1539,
and the last revision in 1559.
The first book is taken up with God the Creator and
His attributes, and then with man as formed in the
Divine image. The second is devoted to the knowledge of God th~ Redeemer. Here come .in original
sin, the bondage of the will, and the work of God in the
hearts of men. The nature and end of the law are
noticed, to prepare for an exhibition of the saving work
of Christ as mediator, prophet, priest, and king. The
third book shows how we are to receive the grace of
Christ, what fruits come thereof, what effects follow.
Faith, regeneration, and repentance are next considered;
then the doctrine of justification. The f~mrth book
unfolds the outward means and help whereby God callsÂˇ
us into the fellowship of Christ; and here Calvin gives
1

Bungener's Calvin, p.

22.

39 2

Rif,mned Theology.

[PART V.

his views of the Church, and of its sacraments. Such is
the arrangement of the treatise.
It is not necessary for us to go over the ground in
which he agrees with other orthodox divines.
The
peculiarities of his theological system, the contributions
he made to dogmatic science, alone require our particular attention,
I. In his doctrine of original sin he differed from
Zwingli, who defined it as a disease, and denied it the
character of guiltine-ss. Calvin describes it as a corruption poured into all parts of human nature, making men
guilty in the sight of God, and as that which Paul
oftentimes calleth sin. Therefore, he adds, being so
corrupted, we are deservingly condemned. In the same
strain as Augustine, Calvin insists upon it that we are
not ourselves innocent, and pronounced guilty on account
of another; but that all men are involved in original sin,
and defiled with its spots. Infants themselves, he says,
whilst they bring with them their own condemnation, are
bound not by another's, but by their own fault. We
derive from Adam not only the punishment of sin, but sin
itself, to which punishment is due. He sought to justify
theÂˇ Divine government, in connection with the present
constitution of things, by attributing personal guilt to
human beings from the commencement of their existence,
and by insisting upon it that they deserve what they
suffer. 1 But in attributing personal guilt to infants,
unconscious of moral responsibility, he only shifted the
difficulty, as he did many another difficulty; just put it
in another place, without doing anything to set it aside
altogether.
2. His doctrine of predestination is developed in his
1

Instil., lib.

II.

c. 8.

A.D. 1518-1560.]

Calvin.

393

third book, and to this we must direct our special attention. It occupies the twenty-first and three following
chapters, yet forms by no means so prominent a topic
in the Institutes as many imagine. First, he defines
eternal election ; secondly, he confirms the doctrine ;
thirdly, he confutes the slanders wherewith it has been
assailed ; fourthly, he maintains that election is established by Divine calling ; and finally, that the reprobate
do bring upon themselves the just destruction to which
they are appointed.
He describes predestination generally as that whereby
God appoints some to the hope of life, and some to
' eternal death; and in explaining this, which he says all
godly people will in some sense accept, he brings out
his own distinctive ideas. 1 He rests the eternal election
of the saved upon the fact that individual salvation is
simply and entirely the result of Divine grace. Therefore the exercise of that grace in time results from a
gracious purpose from all eternity. But the peculiarities
of Cal~in's theory do not appear in connection with
the salvation of those who believe in Christ so much as
in connection with the perdition of those who do not
believe. The schoolmen had made much of the distinction between the Divine prescience and the Divine predestination. Those who are saved had been regarded
as the Divinely ordained; those who are not saved as
simply the Divinely foreseen. Of that distinction Calvin
refuses to avail himself, and seeks to bring the whole
sum of things under one comprehensive system of
Divine appointment. 2 He could not look at anything
1
2

in the universe apart from God's power and control.
That God should let anything alone, that He should
simply look on and do nothing, that He should foresee what is to take place and not interfere, was to
this inquisitive and systematic thinker a conception
not to be entertained for a moment.
Nor could he
content himself, as some of the schoolmen had done,
with leaving the question in mystery and darkness, as
something not to be touched; he felt impelled to
scrutinize it, and to bring the result into systematic
relation to other subjects. He seems in this respect
to resemble Gottschalk, who differed from other medireval divines not so much in his theory of the salvation of the elect, as in his theory of the destruction of
the non-elect. He would bring the two subjects into
harmony.
Calvin could not look at a Divine election without
seeing in connection with it a Divine reprobation, at
the sight of which he trembles, for he calls it lzorribile
decretztm, a terrible decree. 1
Bungener accurately sums up Calvin's teaching on
this subject in these words : "God, in the fulness of His
sovereignty, by His eternal and immutable counsel, hath
decreed some to salvation, others to damnation ; and as
He owed nothing to either, the elect have to bless Him
everlastingly, and the reprobate have no right to complain. Calvin acknowledges, or nearly so, that there
is no explicit statement to that effect in Holy Writ; it
is sufficient for him that it is a logical deduction. 'Those
whom God in election passes over,' he will say, ' God
reprobates.' To admit the election of grace and reject
c. 23 ; VII. turns upon Divine foresight and foreknowledge, which he
1 Instit., lib. III. c. 23 ; VII.
repeatedly mentions.

Calvin.

A.D. I 518-1560.]

395

the election of death is ' puerile,' is 'stupid folly.'
Human ideas, human justice, and human pity must be
banished from these questions. 'The honour of God
demands it.' Calvin forgets one' thing only, which is,
that logic is also human. Logic is reason, and even
reason arrogating to itself the right of judging alone,
supremely and without appeal. 'The honour of God,'
therefore, imperatively demands, also, that we should at
times silence it, and that we should not presume to
impose upon God our conclusions, however clear and
unanswerable they may seem to our intellect. When
Calvin deems that predestination is proved by the sole
fact of there being no other logical solution, his method
at bottom is only that of the infidel establishing logically
the impossibility of a supernatural reveiation ; or of the
Romanist establishing, not less logically, that, a revelation
being granted, God must have instituted a visible
authority intrusted with its interpretation. All this
supposes that God cannot find any solutions but such
as appear to us the only possible ones : all this logic,
consequently, is illogical when the question relates to
God, His designs, His wisdom, His goodness, and His
power.'' 1
Calvin says God is justified in punishing, because He
is not the cause of sin. But since the sinfulness runs up
to Adam, the cardinal question is, How does the fall
stand related to God's will? Here Calvin felt there
was a difficulty. Whilst not satisfied with attributing to
God a mere permission of evil, he yet sought to devolve
on man the whole guilt of sin. Man, he says, falls
because God so orders, yet he falls through his own
fault (cadit homo Dei providentid sic ordinante, sed suo
1

Bungener's Calvin, p. 51.

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

vitio cadit). So keen an observer as Calvin could not
but see the two facts, that God is an omnipotent and
holy Sovereign, yet that sin exists under His government'. He sought to comprehend this mystery, to reduce these two facts into harmony, and only failed as
everybody else fails who touches the inscrutable problem.
However, Calvin would not let his theory of predestination prevent him from maintaining the idea of human
guilt and of Divine righteousness. This must be carefully kept in mind. Nothing can be more unfair than
to represent Calvin as careless about the justice of God,
as only intent on exhibiting His grace. He was as
zealous for the one as the other, however unsatisfactory
might be his mode of presenting them. No one should
assume that Calvin was perfectly consistent, and say,because he believed Providence had ordered the fall,
therefore he must have believed God was the author of
evil, and must have denied the Divine righteousness;
better and truer is it to say, Calvin was inconsistent, and
believed in two things, which he vainly attempted to
reconcile. Indeed, he checks the development of his own
views, and recommends the student of these subjects to
keep to the approximate cause of destruction-sin ; and
to the ultimate cause of salvation-God.
Faith, he says, comes from election, and the knowledge of individual election comes from faith. No one
is elected who is not called, though some are called who
are not elected. Beginnings of the Spirit's work are
vouchsafed even to the reprobate, but the highest work
of the Spirit is confined to the elect. In election Hes
the donttm perseverantice; calling and faith would be
little without this. There is an abiding communion
with Christ for all the elect. He believed the elect

A.D. I 518-156o.]

Calvin.

397

might fall for a time, but not permanently apostatize.
As in the case of other great theologians, so in the
case of Calvin, his theology shouÂˇld be studied in connection with his spiritual life. "His dogmatical structures,
bold as they are in the logical consistency of their thought,
yet always preserve for him, at the same time, an edifying
character. Even when he daringly seeks to pierce into
the Divine mysteries of predestination, he is always led
by the practical desire of subserving the holiness and
majesty of God, and of finding for the heart an eternal
anchorage in which it can securely repose in the consciousness of election by Divine grace." 1 This was central
with him-the indissolubility of conscious communion
with. the Redeemer, and the indefectibility of grace. 2
Whatever may be the logical inferences which we consider legitimately deducible from his opinions, it is quite
clear that he does not sanction any Antinomian conclusions from his theory of election. Faith, he maintained,
is the root of all good. 3 It breedeth repentance. 4 It
regenerateth man. 5
Holiness of life is the end of
election. 6 What lies at the bottom of Calvin's theology
is Paul's doctrine of the sovereignty of God. In grace,
as in nature, all things are of Him. Calvin saw God everywhere in nature;-" Him first, Him last, Him midst and
without end." His philosophy was steeped in a Divine
spirit.
He was one of the most determined Antipositivists that ever lived; just like Paul and Augustine.
How he would have fought against the dogmas of
scientific Positivism ! In his eye the universe is full of
1

God. So is the Church. He was penetrated with the
conviction that Divine power, wisdom, righteousness, and
love are at the basis of all things. It came Âˇ first in
his theology, not second, because he believed it stood
first in the Bible; certainly it stood first in his own
soul. He had a place in his mind for human responsibility-not the large place it ought to have had ; the
first place, the all-absorbing place, was occupied by the
sovereignty of the Most High. His standpoint was an
apriori one. He went back to the beginning, took his
place beside the eternal throne, and calmly looked
through the vista of the ages onward to the day of
doom, downward to the pit of hell, upwards to the
gates of heaven. He was so fuli of the thought of the
grace of God that it blinded his vision to other things
which he ought to have seen. All relating to humanity
which he did see, he looked at from the standpoint of
the Divine purposes. He had a marvellous genius for
dialectics. He was an inflexible, fearless logician. His
argumentative power sometimes kept his whole nature
in abeyance, even his strongest affections. He worked
out a system of Divine decrees-effectual calling, irresistible grace, and the reprobation of the lost-with a tremendous consistency of deduction; but these doctrines
were in his view but phases of the one truth laid down
by the apostle: "Of Him, and through Him, and to Him,
are all things." 1 He was one-sided, and from one.
principle sought to construct a harmonious scheme
of doctrine. His mistake was in not seeing that for
sound logical conclusions on this mysterious themethere are more premises than one. One fundamental,
primary, incontestable principle in religion he diJ hold;.
1

Rom. xi, 36.

A.D.

Calvin.

1518-156o]

399

and that we must hold, or be one-sided in another
way, and fall into errors differing from his, but most
mischievous.
3. In relation to the atonement, it is to be remarked
that Calvin entered upon it more largely than some other
Reformers. He insisted upon its necessity; dwelt upon
the self-sacrifice of Christ; asserted its vicarious, expiatory, and satisfactory character ; but he did not adopt any
distinction between the active and passive obedience of
Christ. 1 That seems first to appear in Protestant theology
in the Formula Concordim of 1576.2
As to the extent of the atonement, we do not find any
discussion ; but when he speaks of Christ's purchasing
salvation for us, his reasoning implies that by us we are
to understand believers in Christ-the elect. He cert~inly takes that view in his commentary on I John ii. 2,
where he alludes to and admits the idea that Christ's
sufferings were sufficient for the whole world ; but he
denies that the " whole world " for which Christ made
propitiation includes the reprobate. Yet in his epistles
he speaks of the redemption of all, omnium redemptionem,
and of the human race being reconciled, universum
lzumanum genus reconciliandum. 3
4. On justification by faith he gives his views at
length. He distinguishes between different kinds of faith,
and says that "the true faith or knowledge of Christ is
when we conceive Him in such sort as He is offered of
the Father, that is to say, clothed with His gospel. Faith
bath a mutual relation to'the Word, and the Word to faith.
The Word is the foundation of faith, the ground of faith,
the mirror in which faith beholdeth God. Although it
1

Instil. lib.

2 Shedd, vol.
c. I 5.
Epistola, p. 395. Ed. 1575.

II.
3

II.

p. 343Âˇ

Reformed Theology.

400

[PART V.

assenteth to all parts of God's Word, yet it has especial
regard to the Divine good will and mercy, and to the
promises of grace grounded upon Christ." It is to be
noticed throughout that with Calvin the object of faith
is not so much Christ Himself, as the truth revealed
respecting Him.
He removes all obscurity from his idea of justification. "We expound justification," he remarks, "to be
an acceptance of us by God, whereby He receives us into
His favour and takes us to be righteous. The same consists in forgiveness of sins and in the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ." Then he adduces several
passages of Scripture in support of his view. He goes
on to urge that, '' to the end we may be persuaded of the
free justification of the gospel, we must lift up our minds
to the judgment-seat of God;" by which he means that
we are to meditate on the pure and perfect law, and the
infinite justice of God, and so impress upon ourselves a
conviction of sinfulness and our need of mercy. He
maintains 1 that there are two objects noticeable in justification : first, that the glory of God may be manifestly
declared, and secondly, that' human consciences may
derive from it untroubled quietness. Calvin shows that
both these ends are accomplished by the free justification
of sinners according to the doctrine which he lays down.
He describes different kinds or degrees of justification
which are insufficient and false-contending that no
human works or endeavours are capable of making men
acceptable to God; finally he teaches in scholastic phraseology that the procuring cause of salvation is the mercy
of God, the material cause is the righteousness of Christ,
the formal or instrumental cause is the faith of the believer,
1

On Justification, see Instit. lib.

III.

c.

JI, 12, 13, 14.

Calvin.

A.D. 1518-1560.]

401

and the final cause is the exhibition of Divine righteousness and the praise of Divine goodness.
5. In reference to regeneration, it is instructive to
compare the teaching of Calvin' with that of others.
Luther clung to the old notion of baptismal grace. He
spoke of the blood of Christ as tinging the water, and
rendering it rose-coloured ; as making the water different
from what it was, having added to it the glory, might,
and power of God Himself.1 Calvin protested against
the doctrine of our being cleansed by baptismal water.
It is not, he says, the water which cleanses, but the blood
of Christ ; thus he comes to a conclusion somewhat resembling Luther's, though not so rhetorically expressed.
" At what time soever we are baptized," he remarks, "we
are at once cleansed for all our life." " As oft as we fall,
we must go back to the remembrance of baptism, and
therewith arm our minds." ~ But we should connect
one part of Calvin's theology with another; and it may be
noticed that he treats of repentance by itself, and dwells
upon it as the fruit of faith, to which he ascribes our
regeneration ; moreover, repentance is with him essentially different from Romish penance, and is described
in such a way as amounts to the same thing as is
meant by regeneration, and this he carefully defines as
a result of faith. 3
The tendency of the reformed doctrines no doubt
was to create a revolution of thought relative to the
doctrine of regeneration. Old views could not hold their
place consistently with justification by faith, with the
distiqction between Divine acceptance and personal holiness, and with the denial of the efficacy of sacraments.
1 Werke, XII. 714.
â&#x20AC;˘ Instil., lib. IV. c. I 5.
3

Ibid. lib. III. c. 3.
DD

402

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

But neither Luther nor Calvin could at once shake off their
early associations with baptism ; and Zwingli stands
alone among the leading foreign Reformers of the day
in treating baptism as a simple sign, and the regeneration of the soul as proceeding from God's grace alone.
On one subject connected with baptism Calvin
differed widely from those of the Fathers whom in the
general tone of his theology he most resembled.
Ambrose had taught distinctly that no one rises into
the kingdom of heaven except by the sacrament of
baptism. From this necessity, he expressly says, infants
are not to be excepted. Augustine at first was more
moderate, but afterwards he pushed his theory so as
to exclude unbaptized infants from heaven; but he
considered their condition as higher and more tolerable
than that of the lost in general. From so repulsive and
unscriptural a view the Genevan divine shrunk back
with something like horror, and asked those who doomed
infants to eternal death because unbaptized, how they
could reconcile it with the words of Christ, who taught
that of such is the kingdom of heaven.1
The French genius which inspired the theology of
Calvin helped to promote its acceptance with his fellowcountrymen. Not only in the Gallic-Swiss community
of Geneva, where he reigned supreme as a doctrinal
divine and as an ecclesiastical ruler, was his system
embraced, but it was adopted by French Protestants
generally. The Reformed Church of France became
decidedly Calvinistic.
The opinions of Calvin in reference to the Lord's
Supper had better be placed side by side with those of
1 Comp1re passages cited in Hagenbach, vol. I. p. 365, with
Calvin's Institutes, lib. IV. c. 16, ยง 26.

A,D, 1518-1560.]

Calvin.

Luther and Zwingli, whose teaching on the subject we
have intentionally passed over.
.Luther renounced the doctrine of transubstantiation,
and put in its place the doctrine of consubstantiation.
He earnestly contended for the literal meaning of the
Saviour's words, "This is My body, this is My blood."
But he explained the change in the sacrament thus: the
bread and wine are not themselves substantially altered,
but with them the real body and blood of Christ are
incorporated and do coexist. The glorified humanity
of our Saviour Luther believed to be ubiquitous. Zwingli,
on the other hand, as firmly insisted on the figurative
meaning of the Redeemer's words. "This is," he said,
means, "This signifies." Luther appealed to the letter,
Zwingli to the spirit, of God's Word. The latter could
not endure the notion of an ubiquitous body maintained
by the former. He recognized in the Supper nothing
more than a devout commemoration and a sign of Christian fellowship. 1 Whether Zwingli before his death
modified his view, and entertained the idea of a spiritual
presence of the Lord in the sacrament, is doubtful. 2
But such certainly was the doctrine adopted by Calvin.
He would not, he says, "fasten Christ's presence to the
element of bread, or shut Him up in it." But, he maintains, there is a true and substantial communicating of
the body and blood of the Lord under the signs of the
Supper, so that they are not received by imagination
only or understanding of mind, but enjoyed in very deed
as the food of eternal life. He enforces the fact that
Christ's body is in heaven, and insists on the figurative
1 Hase's Hist. of the Chn'stzan Church, p. 389, supplies ample
references.
2 Hagenbach, Hist. of Doct., vol. II. p. 297,

D D 2

Reformed Theology.

[PART V,

meaning of the word "is ; "but he goes beyond the notion
of a mere commemoration in the sacrament through
symbols, and speaks of "the presence of the flesh of
Christ in the Supper." 1 But he adds, "If any man asks
respecting the manner, I am not ashamed to confess that
it is a higher secret than can be comprehended by
my wit or uttered by my words. I rather feel it than
understand it." 2
The Calvinistic Confessions of faith intended for
local purposes are the Geneva Catechism, the Zurich
Consensus, and the Geneva Consensus ; they are of
secondary authority, and are not included in the Corpus
et Syntagma Confi:ssionum which appeared in Geneva.
But the influence of Calvin's theology and Church
polity is manifest in all the leading Confessions of the
Reformed Churches, especially the French, Dutch, and
Scotch; also in the Lambeth Articles, the Irish Articles,
and the Westminster Standards. 3
The chief place amongst Swiss and French Reformers
must be assigned to John Calvin. Great as he was in
theological literature, he was perhaps even greater in
ecclesiastical action ; and viewed under either of these
aspects, his personal character must be united to his
achievements in order to his being fairly appreciated.
He lived sparingly, and died poor, leaving behind
him, besides his library, not more than fifty pounds.
Sternness was a leading characteristic in the Genevan
Reformer. 4 He had to rule a riotous city, and he did so
1

with an iron hand. But his purpose was noble, and, as it
regards outward reformation, his success was great. He
won the homage, if not the hearts, of the citizens, and as
he walked the streets of the lake-washed city, all who
passed by felt that he was a king of men.
We have noticed the intolerance which his position
developed; but in contrast we ought to look at -him
during ~he interval of his life passed at Strasburg, as
pastor of a Church composed of his own countrymen.
"At no time does he appear more admirable than during
these years of exile. His magnanimity and single-minded
earnestness come out strongly tempered by a certain
patience, moderation, and sadness that we seem to miss
elsewhere. Relieved from power, he was also relieved
from its wounding irritations, which were apt to chafe
his keen spirit ; and we see only the simple grandeur,
wonderful capacity, and truthful feeling of the man.
They were years of busy interest and activity-political,
domesfic,-and theological." 1 He died with the ministers
and syndics of Geneva round his bed, of whom he
begged forgiveness for occasional outbursts of violence.
Calvin's system of doctrine and government was
carried over into Scotland. The Reformation there may
be dated from about 1525, when Patrick Hamilton,
titular abbot of Ferne, preached against medi~val abuses,
and advocated Lutheran ideas of grace, faith, and freewill. "The smoke of Patrick Hamilton having infected
as many as it blew upon, an Act was passed in Scotland
against the damnable opinions of the heretic Luther ; " 2
and a struggle began which ended in the complete
overthrow of the Roman Catholic system.
1

Dr. Tulloch.
â&#x20AC;˘ Keith's History of Church and State in Scotland, vol.

I.

p. 27.

406

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

JOHN KNOX (A.D. 1505-1572) was the man who, beyond all others, led Scotch reform onwards to its memorable victories. What had been done by the leaders of
English Protestantism seemed wavering and timid to one
of his ardent spirit and daring temper; and having found
at Geneva, in John Calvin, a teacher more after his own
heart, he returned to his native land, imbued with both the
Frenchman's theology and the Frenchman's ecclesiastical
principles. At last he succeeded in impressing them upon
the minds of his countrymen. Little of original literature appears in Scotland connected with the religious
revolution of the sixteenth century. It is a mistake to
suppose that there were not men of culture at the time
amongst these northern Protestants. Buchanan was a
Latin poet; Row was a Hebrew scholar, and used in
family intercourse the French language, with Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew readings of Scripture; Balnaves had
a high reputation for erudite attainments; John Erskine
of Dun was the first to patronize the study 01 Greek
classics; Fergusson improved the language of his c,ountry,
and made a mark by his witty sayings; but none of
them produced any theological works of importance.
In this respect even Knox falls below what would be
imagined by those acquainted only with the activities
of his career. He wrote a characteristic history of the
Reformation, and blew his terrific Blast of the Trumpet
against the Monstrous Regiment of Women; but in the
preface to a sermon he published he says," That I did
not in writing communicate my judgment upon the
Scriptures I have ever thought myself to have most just
reason.
For considering myself rather called of my
God to instruct the ignorant, comfort the sorrowful,
confirm the weak, and rebuke the proud by tongue and

A.D. 1518-156o.]

Knox.

407

lively voice in these most corrupt days, than to compose
books for the ages to come (seeing that so much is
written, and by men of most singular erudition, and yet
so little well observed), I decreed to contain myself
within the bounds of that vocation whereunto I found
myself especially call~d." Thus he at once disclaims
pretension to any great theological authorship, and gives
as a reason the well-known fact~that an abundance of
Protestant literature had been published by his contemporaries, especially in Germany, Switzerland, France; and
that much of it had been circulated partly through translations in Great Britain. His chief theological work is
An Answer to a Great Number of Blasphemous C11villations written by an Anabaptist and Adversary to God's
Eternal Predestination. As this work is little known,
we supply a description of it, after examining the rare
copy in the Advocates' Library, Edinburgh.
The first edition is dated I 56o, 1 and the preface contains reasons alleged by the author for his publication of
this treatise. Far from taking up the subject as a mere
doctrinal theory, he insists upon predestination as lying
at the root of all real religion. "V,/e fear not to affirm,"
he says, "that so necessary as it is that true faith be
established in our hearts, that we may be moved to praise
Him for His free grace received, so necessary also is the
doctrine of God's eternal predestination." Then he proceeds to contend that it is essential to the existence of
Christian faith and the possession of genuine humility.
He resents the denomination of his opinion by "the
1 "Printed by John Crespin." It does not say where. An edition
of Knox's works in four volumes has been published under the
superintendence of David Laing, of the Signet Library. Dr. McCrie
in his Life of Knox has done more than any one to revive the
memory of the Scotch Reformer.

Reformed Theology.

[PART V,

odious name of stoical necessity," -such necessity he
denounces as "devilish" and "profane,"-and proceeds
to explain the difference between the doctrine of Calvin
and that of the Stoics in the following manner : " We
imagine not a necessity which is contained within nature
by a perpetual conjunction of natural causes, as did
the Stoics ; but we affirm and maintain that God is
Lord, Moderator, and Governor of all things, whom we
affirm to have determined from the beginning, according
to His wisdom, what He would do ; and now we say that
He doth execute according to His power whatsoever
He hath determined." In treating of prescience, it is
curious to find the author noticing the Platonic theory
of ideas: "When we attribute prescience to God, we
understand that all things have ever been and perpetually abide present before His eyes, soÂˇ that to His
eternal knowledge nothing is byepast, nothing to come,
but all things are present; and so are they present, that
they are not as conceived imaginations, or forms and
figures whereof other innumerable things proceed (as
Plato teacheth that of the form and example of one man
many thousands of men are fashioned). But we say that
all things be so present before God that He doth contemplate and behold them .in their verity and perfection."
Against the moral perversion of his doctrine Knox
protests. In reference to the idea "that we imagine it
sufficient that we be predestinate, how wickedly soever we
live," he says, "We constantly affirm the plain contrary;"
and refuses, in unmeasured terms of condemnation, to
accept his antagonist's caricature of Calvinism : "God
hath created the most part of the world, which is an innumerable multitude, to perdition because it so pleaseth
Him." Whatever might be the construction put on Knox's

A.D.

1518-1560.]

Knox.

view, which was substantially the same as Calvin's, he
asserted most strenuously the wisdom, the righteousness,
and the love of the Almighty in all His dispensations.
Calvin and Knox might be logically inconsistent in
some respects, but to charge them with opinions which
may seem to a critic logically involved in the positions
they maintained, when such opinions are expressly
repudiated, is decidedly unfair. With reference to the
non-elect, the Scotch Reformer declares, "To those whom
He hath decreed to leave in perdition is so shut up the
entry of life, that either they are left continually corrupted in their blindness, or else, if grace be offered, by
theni it is oppugned and obstinately refused; or, if it
seem to be received, that abideth for a time only, and
so they return to their blindness and crooked nature
and infidelity again, in which finally they justly perish."
From beginning to end Knox's book is a protest against
certain consequences, dishonourable to the righteousness
of God's government, which the adversaries of Calvinism
deduced from Calvinistic principles.
Respecting the
Reformer's logic, and his application of Scripture texts,
of course there will be varieties of opinion. The simple
affirmations of the Scotch theologian are all we have
to do with here, and these we have endeavoured
impartially to extract from the scarce volume above
described.1
The Confession of the English Congregation at
Geneva, 1558, was probably composed by Knox, and
consists of only four articles-respecting the Father, the
Son, the Holy Ghost, and the Church. The first and
1 It is a 12mo book, and contains 455 pages.
There is also
another edition in the Advocates' Library, dated 1591, "imprinted
at London for Thomas Charde,"

410

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

last bear some resemblance to the Scotch Confession.
This latter was drawn up by the Reformer and his
brethren John Spottiswood, John Hillock, John Douglas,
and John Row. No doubt Knox took a leading part,
owing to his experience in Geneva, his acquaintance with
the Swiss standards, and the help he had given to the
English Articles under Edward VI. This Confession,
prepared in 1560, as Dr. Schaff observes, though decidedly Calvinistic, is free from the scholastic technicalities and angular statements of the Calvinism of a later
generation ; and it has been also remarked by Dean
Stanley that it is the only Protestant Confession which,
far in advance of its age, acknowledges its own fallibility.1 Upon the Eucharist, then a principal subject of
controversy, it is said, "We confess and undoubtedly
believe that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord's
table, so do eat the body and drink the blood of the
Lord Jesus, that He remaineth in them, and they in
Him ; yea, that they are so made flesh of His flesh, and
bone of His bone, that as the eternal Godhead had given
to the flesh of Jesus Christ (which of their own condition
and nature was mortal and corruptible) life and immortality, so doth Christ Jesus, His flesh and blood eaten
and drunken by us, give to us the same prerogatives."
An incisive and even startling expression of Knox's
view of the atonement is found in the following passages
from a letter written to his mother-in-law in A.D. 1553,
whilst he was at London, before he went to Frankfort.
" If we understand of whom God requires satisfaction,
whether of us or of the hands of His only Son, and
' It promises reformation of that in it which should be proved
amiss. See Schaff's Hist. of the Creeds of Christendom, pp. 681,
683.

A.D.

1518-156o.]

Knox.

41 l

whose punishment is able to recompense our sins, then
shall we have great cause to rejoice, remembering that
God is a just God; for the office of the just man is to
stand content when he has received his duty. But
God has received already, at the hands of His only Son,
all that is due for our sins, and so cannot His justice
require or crave any more of us, either satisfaction or
recompensation for our sins." " He that is faithful has
promised free remission to all penitent sinners, and He
that is just has received already a full satisfaction for the
sins of all those that embrace Christ Jesus to be the
only Saviour of the world."
It is remarked, by one who attributes to John Knox
a larger amount of fanaticism than facts are sufficient to
warrant, that" there were moments when, amid the lull
of controversy, he retreated to his closet, communed
deeply with himself and God, and after patiently investigating the mysterious problems of the Bible, reasoned
with comparative sobriety upon the nature of the means
to be adopted in transmitting Christ's evangel to
posterity." We see no reason for being surprised at
this, and we fully adopt the following remark: "Accordingly, the first Confession indicates no wish whatever to
break away from the traditional terminology of the
Church, so far as it concerns the doctrines of the blessed
Trinity, the incarnation and atonement of the Saviour,
and the Godhead of the Holy Ghost." 1
No particular form of ecclesiastical government or
religious worship is laid down in the Scotch Confession
of l 56o. Knox prepared a book of Common Order,
adopted by the General Assembly in 1564, and used for
a long time; and a National Covenant followed in 1581,
' Hardwick's Reformation, p. 155.

412

Reformed Theology.

[PART
V.
,,

after Knox's death, in which "bastard sacraments,"
"the blasphemous Âˇopinion of transubstantiation," the
" devilish mass," the " wicked hierarchy," and the
"bloody decrees at Trent" are renounced for ever; it was
not, however, until a later period that the Presbyterian
system reached its completion in Scotland. A modified
Episcopacy lasted to the end of Knox's lifetime, in A.D.
I 572, and a convention at Leith that year restored
the titles of" archbishop" and "bishop." But in I 574
Andrew Melville, the friend of Beza, returned from
Geneva to his own country, and determined to carry on
the Presbyterian Reformation from the point where
Knox had left it. He believed in the Divine right of
Presbyterianism, and laboured for eighteen years to work
out the system fully in his native land. The Second
Book of Discipline-containing an elaborate and consistent development of the theory, in which, by a clear
analysis, "the two ruling powers are separated from each
other, and the ecclesiastical set above the secular,"was drawn up chiefly by Melville in A.D. I 578, and inserted
in the Registers of the General Assembly in I 58 I, but
it did not receive the ratification of the temporal power
until I 592.
Knox began, but it was Melville who
completed the Scotch Reformation.
The two men resembled each other. They wereÂˇ
much more like Calvin than like Zwingli, or Melancthon,
or even Luther. They both played a distinguished
part in the history of their country, and made many
enemies ; but no one ever imputed to either what
was sordid, selfish, mean, world-loving, or dishonour~
able. Open as the day, and courageous to a proverb,
they defied all opposition, and counted not their lives
dear unto them. The Regent's exclamation by the

A.D. 1518-156o.]

Melville.

grave of Knox will never be forgotten : "There lies he
who never feared the face of man ; " and Andrew Melville,
in contending against Prelacy and for Presbyterianism;
was just as brave. When threatened by Morton, he
replied, " Tush, man ; threatenÂˇ your courtiers so ? It is
the same to me whether I rot in the air or in the
ground ; and I have lived out of our country as well as
in it. Let God be praised, you can n!'!ither hang nor
exile His truth." Melville, as well as Knox, had left
Scotland for the Continent, and lived in Geneva. There
the former became an intimate friend of Beza, and
Beza did much to shape his ecclesiastical character.
"Next to the Reformer," says the biographer of both,
"l know no individual from whom Scotland has received
such important services, or to whom she continues to
owe so deep a debt of national respect and gratitude, as
Andrew Melville." 1
1

M'Crie.

CHAPTER IV.
REFORMED THEOLOGY IN ITALY.

I

was the first country in Europe to enjoy the
great intellectual and literary revival of the fifteenth
century; but in connection with it a strong current of
sceptical thought swept through cultivated minds in
that beautiful peninsula, where nature appears in harmony with all which is graceful and refined. Faith in
the dogmas and institutions of Rome was rudely shaken ;
and because with these the whole of Christianity had
come to be identified, truth as well as error suffered
from the violent collision.
Classical tastes also in
themselves at the time produced serious perils. The
Humanists, as they are called, were so enamoured with
pagan antiquity as to regard with scepticism, and even
antipathy, the gospel of the cross. The temper caught
from the poems of Lucretius and from the dialogues of
Cicero, not the nobler philosophy of Plato or of the
Stoics, laid hold of the sensuous nature of the Italian,
and dragged him down into moods of thought infinitely
below those which had moved prophets and apostles.
But when the first quarter of the sixteenth century
had elapsed, we discern signs of better things. A translation of Melancthon's Loci Communes was printed at
Venice in A.D. I 526, Vernacular versions of Scripture had
previously made their appearance; and in 1530 a new
one issued from the busily-worked presses of the City
on the Sea. Military and commercial relations existed
TALY

A.D. 1518-1560.]

7uan Valdes.

between the people of Germany and of the South, and
these brought Lutheran and other Protestant publications
into Lombard and Tuscan towns ; at the same time
Renee, Duchess of Ferrara, welcomed to her court some
of the leading Reformers, who inculcated their tenets
upon the noble and the learned.
Not only was Protestant theology imported into
Italy, but in Italy Protestant theology was also produced,
to nourish the increasing band of such as embraced the
"new faith" between I 52 5 and I 540. Even in so unlikely a production as a preface to the famous Orlando
Inamorata may be found opinions of a decided Protestant
character; and Fanizzi, who discovered this curious relic,
and who was so intimately conversant with the literature
and history of his country, went so far as to say that the
reforming tenets were as popular amongst the higher
classes of Italy in those days as liberal notions in ours.
JUAN VALDES was a Spaniard, and died in 1540, but
he lived for some time in Italy, and there produced a deep
and extensive impression. He was the author of several
works on Divinity, but that by which he is best known
consists of what are called A Hundred and Ten Considerations, written in his native tongue, and then translated
into Italian. The Italian version has been rendered into
English by Mr. Betts, with a valuable introduction by
Mr. Wiffen ; and now we are enabled to clear away the
confusion which from ignorance of his writings long
attached to his name and reputation. From a perusal of
the work we find that he did not deal in scholastic propositions, or in logical reasoning; that his habits of thought
were rather religious than theological, experimental than
scientific; that he did not attack the errors and superstitions of Romanism, but confined himself to the

Âˇ Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

inculcation of what he believed to be Divine truth. In
his Considerations he dwells upon the atonement, which
he describes as "Justice executed upon Christ ; " upon
justification by faith, which is expounded in a somewhat
Lutheran form ; and upon regeneration as the work of
the Holy Spirit, after much the type of doctrine generally
adopted by Evangelical divines. The fruitlessness of
mere speculation, the moral power of Christian faith, and
the spirituality of religion, are ever-recurring topics in
the long series of his remarks, which do not exhibit any
systematic order. He quotes Scripture texts, but more
abundantly Fefers to the illumination of the soul by the
direct agency of the Holy Ghost. Several questionable
statements are introduced; but the chapters are rich in
shrewd ideas and lively illustrations, and present throughout subtlety of thought, and a keen habit of analysis.
The whole is pervaded by the spirit of characteristic
authors classed together as Mystics ; and this accounts
for misapprehensions of his meaning into which critics
both foreign and English have been betrayed.I Âˇ Old
moulds and forms of thought were brok~n up by some
writers of this description, and they were not unlikely
to say things which enemies and even friends might
regard as heretical.
GABRIELE V ALLICULI, of whom nothing more is
known, wrote a book on the Free Grace of God and the
Bondage of the Human Will, printed at Nuremberg in
I 536, and possibly published still earlier in Italy.
This book, which is said to exhibit more piety than
1

Calvin and Beza, as quoted by Bayle, Art. 'Valdes.' Hallam'~
Introduction to Literature, vol. I. p. 509. See also M'Crie's Reformation in Italy, p. 135, 150, and Life and Times of Paleario, by M.
Young, chap. vr.

A.D. 1518-1500.]

Italian Writers.

417

talent, presents something like a reflex of Luther's
theology, without any of Luther's power. The Loci
Communes of Melancthon are frequently referred to as a
vehicle in the conveyance of Prot<:;stant ideas into Italy ;
but the calm and balanced j udgment of that learned
theologian would have less charms for such a man as
Valliculi, supposing he had read Melancthon's work,
than the burning words of his brother Martin. Probably y,e are correct when we recognize this Italian
treatise as a fair type of the popular theology which
was making its way in the Papal States, where Bishop
Sylvestro Benedetto was born, to whom the treatise is
dedicated.
As a specimen of the popular reformed theology of
Italy, we may notice il Sommario de la Sancta Scriptura,
etc., in two parts. A prologue explains the nature of the
work, stating that, in the first place, it is intended to
teach how every one ought to believe, and what he ought
to hope for ; that we are children and heirs of the kingdom of God; that we are justified without our own merits,
and should not place any confidence in them ; and that
we are not to neglect good works, but know how to
perform them, hoping for salvation not from them, but
solely from the grace and mercy of God through Christ.
The author then states that, in the second place, he
designs to inculcate what is practical ; not that subjects
should be disobedient to their princes, nor that monks
should leave their monasteries, but that they should know
their errors and learn to correct them ; for it avails
more before God to be a humble publican than a holy
hypocrite. The doctrine as to justification bears a
Lutheran stamp ; but it is clear that whilst so far the
popular theology is reformed, there is no condemnation
EE

418

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

of a monastic life, but only an attempt made to improve
the habits of those who followed it.
No one is more conspicuous amongst the Roman
Catholic Italians who held a doctrine of justification
like that of Luther than Cardinal GASPAR C0NTARINI
(A.D. 1483-1542). He published a tract on the subject,
in which he distinguished between two kinds of righteousness-that inherent in us, and that imputed in Christ. If
asked on which we should rely, Contarini remarks, A pious
man will answer," We can trust to the latter alone." "Our
righteousness," he goes on to say, "is only inchoate, incomplete, full of defects ; the righteousness of Christ, on
the other hand, true, perfect, thoroughly and alone pleasing
in the eyes of God ; for its sake alone can we trust to be
justified before God." This passage appears in the Paris
edition of 1571, but not in the Venetian edition of 1589,
a circumstance 'which indicates how unwelcome such
teaching was to Papal authorities after the Council of
Trent. The Inquisitor-General of Venice tampered with
the book, omitting some passages and altering others,
before the new edition could receive an imprimatur. 1
Contarini was very anxious to promote an understanding
betwc:en the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics, and
in the doctrine now referred to approached so closely to
the former, that little difference onÂˇ that point remained
between him and them. Nor did he stand alone in
this respect; Seripando, general of the Augustine order,
whilst declaring he did not adopt the Lutheran tenet,
yet admitted a twofold righteousness - one inherent
through unmerited grace, the other imputed, able to
compensate for all defects, and sufficient to secure the
salvation of the imperfect. 2
1

Ranke's History of the Popes, vol. I. p. 205. t Ibid. vol. 1. p.

205.

A.D.

1518-1500.]

Cardinal Pole.

REGINALD POLE (A.D. 1500-1558), who became
Archbishop of Canterbury, sympathized with Contarini
on the subject of justification, and went so far as to
approve of his treatise upon it, "because he said it laid
not only a foundation for agreement with the Protestants, but such a foundation as illustrated the glory of
Christ, the foundation of all Christian doctrine, which
was not well understood by many." He repudiated the
charge of novelty brought against it, alleging that "it
lies at the foundation of all the doctrines held by the
ancient Church." 1 Fourteen years after that he became
Archbishop of Canterbury, and then carried out the
intolerant policy which kindled the Smithfield fires, with
the other horrors of the Marian persecutions ; but Pole
in Italy, where he spent much of his time, and Pole in
England, appear as different persons. Cardinal Morone
concurred with Contarini and Pole in the matter of
justification, and so did other distinguished Roman
Catholics. A formulary was drawn up, that it might
be seen how near they could approach the Lutherans.
It was submitted to Cardinal Cortese, who suggested
alterations for the purpose of making the formulary
more strict and conservative; but Morone objected to
them, and they were afterwards dropped. Things at
thi.s moment (September, 1542) looked so favourably
in the direction of union, that Pole in a letter to
Contarini praised God "for the great gift of charity
which had been bestowed in connection with that holy
business at Modena." 2 Some Roman Catholics have,
1 Pole's letters to Contarini, 17th of May, 16th of July, 1541, and
1 May, 1542.-M'Crie, p. 2o6. See life of Pole in Hook's Archbishops, vol. VIII.
2 Pole, Epist., vol. III. p. 58.

EE2

Reformed Theology.

420

[PART V.

notwithstanding all this, denied that Pole held the dogma
of justification by faith only; but Caracciolo, in his life
of Paul VI., is candid enough to confess : " Cardinal
Pole, either through the influence of Marc Antonio
Âˇ Flaminio, or because very erudite in profane literature,he was little skilled in scholastic theology,-was on this
point so wedded to the dogma of justification by faith
only, and grace of imputation, that he not only, for
a long time, held this false Lutheran opinion, but
also went about making disciples and numerous
converts amongst persons of importance, and filled
his house with servants and courtiers holding the same
opinion." 1
The most remarkable work in the " evangelical "
theology of the period in Italy is I! Beneficio di Gesu
Cristo, printed in I 543, and afterwards translated into
Spanish and French. Curiously enough, Macaulay, led
astray by Ranke, pronounced the book as hopelessly
lost, like the second decade of Livy ; but it was
brought to light in 1855, and reprinted with a learned
introduction.
The work enjoyed great popularity, 40,000 copies
being sold in six years. The authorship of the wdrk
has been a subject for dispute. A contemporary says,
" Many are of opinion that there is scarcely a book of
this age, or at least in the Italian language, so sweet, so
pious, so simple, so well fitted to instruct the ignorant
and weak, especially in the doctrine of justification. I
will say more ; Reginald Pole, the British cardinal and
intimate friend of Merone, was esteemed the author of
that book, or partly so; at least it is known that he, with
Flaminio Priuli and his other friends, defended and
I

Quoted in Hook, vol.

VIII. p. 185.

A.D. 1518--1560.]

Italy.

421

circulated it." 1 It is now thought to be the production
of Aonio Paleario, a celebrated Italian, who for his
opinions was committed to the flames at Rome in I 570.
Perhaps Flaminio revised it. 2
To the Italian consensus on justification and salva-.
tion through Jesus Christ may be added what we find
in one of the letters of Flaminio, who wrote paraphrases on the Psalms, and was a friend of Pole and
Contarini. "The gospel is no other than the blessed
tidings that the only begotten Son of God, clad in our
flesh, hath made satisfaction for us, to the justice of the
eternal Father. He who believes this enters into the
kingdom of God; he enjoys the universal pardon; from
a carnal he becomes a spiritual creature ; from a child
of wrath, a child of grace; he lives in a sweet peace of
conscience." "It is hardly possible," says Ranke, "to
use language of more orthodox Lutheranism." 3
ANGELO BUONARICI, general of the Canons Regular .
at Venice, is a similar instance. He lays down in unmistakeable terms the doctrine of justification. "Not
that we are to conclude that those who believe in Christ
are not bound and obliged to study the practice of holy,
devout, Âˇand good works; but no one must think or
believe that he can attain to the benefit of justification
by good works, for this is indeed attained by faith, and
good works in the justified do not precede, but follow,
justification." Strange to say, these sentiments appear
in a work published under the sanction of the Venetian
inquisitors. Still more strange, during the sittings of
Vergerio,-Amcenit. Eccl., p. 158; M'Crie, p. 156.
â&#x20AC;˘ Young's Life and Times of Paleari'o, vol. I, p. 332. A translation of Il Benejicio has been published by the Religious Tract
3 Hist., vol. I. p. 139.
Society.
1

422

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

the Council of Trent, the teaching of an Italian Dominican-to the effect that elected souls cannot perish, but
will be recovered from all their falls, and that salvation
and perdition depend not on the human will, but the
Divine predestination-was vindicated by the Patriarch
of Aquileia in a treatise on the subject. Yet more
remarkable, the Tridentine Fathers, in 1563, after an
inquiry prolonged through twenty-four days, acquitted
him of heresy, though they blamed him for making his
opinions public.
This shows how far in some cases theologians might
go in the same direction as Augustine and Gottschalk,
and even further still, without incurring censure. Such
tendencies-at a time when the controversy on justification and kindred topics was so rife, and precision of
language respecting them had been carried to such a
height of refinement and subtlety-really meant more
than they did in the fifth century or the ninth century;
yet if men did not assail the Roman Catholic system in
general, and remained in open communion with it, they
could pass muster. Suspicions arose, the suspected fell
into trouble, but in the end they escaped. Contarini,
Pole; Flaminio, Buonarici, and others remained in the
Papal Church to their dying day; and it may be mentioned that Flaminio prefixed to his book on the Psalms
a dedication to the Pope, in which he is styled "watchman, prince of holiness, the vicegerent of Christ upon
earth." Thus it plainly appears that the fact of theologians holding opinions like Luther as to justification and
other related doctrines did not of itself make therri
Protestants. Reformers they may be justly pronounced,
but not Protestants in the proper acceptation of the term.
Inconsistent thinkers, no doubt, they will appear to many

A.D.

1518-1560.]

Italy.

of our readers ; but inconsistency is a very common fact
both in the history of human opinion and in that of
human conduct.
Amongst other Italians requiring notice was BERNARDINO OCHIN0, a Capuchin, who came to England in
1547, and was a guest in Cranmer's palace. At one time
he was renowned for his evangelical preaching. "The
favourite doctrine of Ochino was justification by faith in
Christ, which, as appears from his printed sermons, he
perfectly understood, and explained with much Scriptural simplicity. Purgatory, penances, and Papal pardons
fell before the preaching of this doctrine, as Dagon of old
before the ark of Jehovah." 1 Ranke, as well as M'Crie,
gives him a high character, and quotes Cardinal Bembo,
who found such a fascination in Ochino that he said, " I
opened my heart to him as I would do to Christ Himself:
it seemed to me that I had never beheld a holier man." 2
Of his extraordinary eloquence, which acted as a spell on
Charles v., and of his immense popularity wherever he
, went, there are numerous attestations. But in Zurich,
whither Ochino repaired, he comes before us with a
damaged reputation. Calvin, indeed, had vindicated him
from the charge of Antitrinitarianism in 1 543 ; but in
15 58 a report was in circulation "stating that Ochino
and the brothers of L::elius Socinus were secretly undermining the doctrine of the merit and satisfaction of
Christ." 8 About the same time he publishe,d a book
entitled Laby,-inthi, in which he discussed free-will and
predestination. Next he published Dialogi xxx. at
Basle, 1 563; and one of these dialogues especially offended
the Zurich clergy, who regarded it as defending the
practice of polygamy. But the opinion has been started
1

M'Crie, p. 146.

' Ranke, vol.

I.

p. 145.

3

M'Crie, p. 430.

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

that the greater part of the offensive discussion was
borrowed from a book written in defence of Philip, the
Landgrave of Hesse, and published in 1541. Other
dialogues were charged with heterodoxy as to the nature
of Christ, and the mode of the Divine existence ; but
they have found defenders, who deny the imputations
cast on the famous Italian Protestant. The views of this
most remarkable man have recently undergone a careful investigation by the learned Karl Benrath, who has
traced his career from beginning to end in a singularly
interesting memoir. He throws much more light on the
nature of Ochino's theological and ethical opinions than
Bayle, M'Crie, and Young had been able toÂˇ do ; and
shows very clearly how Ochino repeats again and again,
"You may say what you will, polygamy is immoral," and
how he also admits the baseless and perilous principle,
that in this and in all other cases " the final decision lies
in the conscience of the individual enlightened by the
prayer of faith." 1 With regard to the Trinity, Benrath
considers that Ochino discourses in a spirit of doubt,
always ready at hand with objections, but yet himself
representing "the traditional doctrine adopted by the
Reformers." There is, to say the least, a haziness resting
over Ochino's treatment of the doctrine ; and there can
be no doubt that in forms of expression, and even in
the substance of his sentiments, he departed, to what
extent it is difficult to say, from the teaching of most
Protestant, as well as all Roman Catholic, divines.
Finally, he went to Poland, where he died ; and, as his
sympathetic biographer observes, " when at the close of
his life he looked back with tears upon his long path of
1 Benardino Ochino <if Siena, by Benrath, translated from the
German by Helen Zimmern,with aprefacebyWilliamArthur, 1876.

A.D. 1518-1500.]

Italy.

sorrows, he was still able to say, for the consolation of his
friends, ' I have had to suffer many things, but that is
spared to none of Christ's disciples and apostles; but
that I have been enabled to endure all things shows
forth the might of the Lord.' " 1
Another Italian better known in this country was
PETER MARTYR (1500-1562), a Florentine by birth,
distinguished alike by learning and eloquence, and
associated with Ochino by bonds of friendship and by
early endeavours to promote reformation in Italy. He
acted as pa~tor of a Protestant Church at Lucca, and
about 1 543 published an exposition of the Apostles'
Creed in the language of his countrymen. Driven from
his own land by persecution, he laboured in Strasburg,
whence he wrote to his late flock at Lucca, saying,
" Although you should be altogether destitute of the
ministers of the word, to whom the preaching of the
gospel is committed, which God forbid, yet the Spirit of
God will never be wanting to speak to your hearts instead
of preachers. Moreover, there are among you those who,
by the grace of God, are so truly illumined with the light
of the truth that they can also impart light to others,
and give testimony to the truth." 2 Such a strain of
address is a key to Peter Martyr's theology. His opinions
went beyond the Protestantism of his German brethren,
for he was hostile to the Augsburg Confession, calling
in question some of the destructive dogmas of Lutheranism.
Reformed doctrines were propagated in Spain, and
to the movement there the writings of Juan Valdes in
Spanish contributed, together with the efforts of his
brother Alfonso. The Bibliotheca Wiffeniana describes
1

Benrath, p. 298.

â&#x20AC;˘ Life of Paleario, vol. 1. p. 417.

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

the Spanish Reformers from the year 1520; and in the
first volume - the only one we have seen - there are
notices of Juan and Alfonso de Valdes, also of Franzisco
and Jaime de Enzinas, together with Juan Diaz. But
we do not notice anything which makes a mark in the
history of theology except the Considerations of Juan
Valdes. So far as literature is concerned, perhaps the
translation of the Theologia Germanica occupies a
principal place. That work appears to have had much
effect on Valdes' mind ; indeed, his Considerations are
steeped in the same spirit, and it is said that he strongly
recommended Taulers' sermons. English influence may
also be traced in Spain, for, says Pilkington, afterwards
Bishop of Durham, "We have seen come to pass in our
days that the Spaniards sent for into the realm on
purpose to repress the gospel, as soon as they were
returned home replenished many parts of their country
with the same truth of religion to which before they
were utter enemies." 1 The History of the Reformation
in Spain is chiefly a record of Christian faith, intense
suffering, and dauntless heroism. 2 The Roman Catholic
Theology of Spain will attract our attention in a future
volume.
1

M'Crie' s History of the Riformatz''on in Spain, p. 228.
See Dr. Rule's History of the Inquisition. It appears from
p. 179, that in the Spanish Index of prohibited books the writings
of Thomas Cranmer were included.
2

CHAPTER V.
REFORMED THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND.

T

HE history of the Reformation in England resolves
itself largely into a record of ecclesiastical controversies, and important changes in the government of the
Church. These subjects lie outside the line of our
present studies, by which we are confined to the state
of theological literature, properly so called, and the
changes exhibited in doctrinal opinion.
One theologian of the period occupies a conspicuous
position entirely his own-WILLIAM TYNDALE (A.D.
1477-1536). He will ever be illustrious as the first
translator of the Scriptures from the original into the
vernacular of his own land ; as a main instrument in the
really religious reform of his fellow countrymen ; and
as a patient, heroic martyr in the cause of truth. He is
not so well known as a theological writer; yet in this
respect he deserves special and most honourable mention.
The Papal supremacy was the object of Tyndale's
intense detestation. Graphically he portrayed its progress,
as it rose and spread itself around and above the secular
powers of the empire-begging now this privilege and
then that; now this city and then that; seeking friends
with flattery, and repaying their simplicity by subjecting
them to its despotic ambition ; so that, as he said, it
resembled the ivy, which springeth out of the earth, and
creepeth along the ground till it findeth a large tree, into
whose bark it thrusts its roots, and around whose branches
it entwines its tendrils, amidst whose leaves it intersects

428

Reformed T htology.

[PART V.

its own, drinking up the moisture of the tree, crushing its
strength, choking its life, and becoming a seat and a
nest for unclean birds. 1
But he was far from being a mere Antipapist. "If,"
he says, "after thou hast heard so many masses, matins,
and even-songs, and hast received holy bread and holy
water, and the bishop's blessing, or.the cardinal or pope's,
thou wilt be more kind to thy neighbour, and love him
better, and be more obedient to thy superiors, more merciful and ready to forgive ; if thou dost more despise the
world, and thirst for spiritual things, then do such things
increase grace. If not, it is a lie."
A clear evangelical light floods every page of his
writings ; Christ is upheld as the world's hope and the
Church's Lord-as the sinner's friend and the believer's
joy-as able and willing to save to the uttermost all who
come unto God by Him-as bestowing pardon, and peace,
and heaven upon the believing soul, without money and
without price. No one could more fully believe that salvation is all of grace-that according to His mercy God
saveth us. " The lost condition of man, and redemption
through Christ," he declares, " are the two keys which
open all Scripture-so that no creature can lock thee
out, and thou shalt go in and out, and find pasture."
"If," said he, writing to John Frith, when imprisoned
in the Tower of London," if you give yourself, cast yourself, yield yourself, commit yourself wholly and only to
your loving Father, then shall His power be in you,
and make you strong, and that so strong, that you shall
feel no pain, which should be to another present death;
and His Spirit shall speak in you, and teach you what
to answer, according to His promise."
1

Practice of Prelates, published in I 530.

A.D. 1518-1560.]

Tyndale.

These passages, it is true, are more the expressions of
devout sentiment than of intellectual thought; but on
that very account they are worthy of notice, because
throughout Tyndale'.s work we see more of the warmhearted religious teacher than of the scholastic or
metaphysical theologian.
Âˇ
There was a bold individuality in William Tyndale,
so- that he appears in history as a star which "dwelt
apart." He did not cross the path of other Reformers,
nor did he proceed together with them along the same
lines. The idiosyncrasy of his mind, and the independence of his character, as well as the peculiarities of his
circumstances, led him throughout his "pilgrim " life,
as he called it, to walk alone, leaning only on the staff
of life, the Word of God. But it was the characteristic
of the Reformers generally, especially such as held high
office in the Church of England, to act together as far as
possible ; and this kept in check personal peculiarities
of opinion, and at least prevented the publication of
divergent sentiments on points of lesser importance.
If theology penetrated the Scotch Church, and
through it produced a great effect on the State ; it may
be said that in England the Church controlled theology,
and that the State had more to do with guiding both
theology -and the Church, than either had to do with
guiding the State. English Reformers were far different
men from John Knox,-a fact differently viewed according to a person's ecclesiastical sympathies. Politics
were less bound up with theology in England than in
Scotland; but so far as they came in contact, the relative
position in one case was far different from the other.
Three eminent men in the reigns of Henry VIII. and
Edwaro VI. may be grouped together.

430

Reformed Theology.

[PART V,

NICHOLAS RIDLEY (A.D. 1500-1555), Bishop of London, a learned scholar and divine, who had studied
at the Sorbonne in Paris, was remarkable for caution,
and wrote to Bradford in reference to the doctrine
of predestination after a manner which at once reveals
the theological temper of his mind: "In those matters
I am so fearful that I dare not speak further, yea,
almost none otherwise than the text doth, as it were,
lead me by the hand." 1 His writings, it may be remarked, turn on ecclesiastical more than theological
points ; and, in opposition to John Knox, whom he
disliked, he manifested reverence for antiquity, and
was unwilling, where he could help it, to break with the
traditions and usages of the Church. On the subject
of the Eucharist, however, he seems to have held a
view similar to John Calvin. 2 Such a view was also
adopted by the Scotch Reformer. The scholastic divine
appears in the writings of Ridley.
HUGH LATIMER (A.D. 1472-1555), Bishop of Worcester, a man of little learning, unskilled in scholastic
logic, but of more originality and vigour, best known by
his racy sermons, has much m.ore to say than Ridley on
the evangelical points of reformed doctrine. The pulpit
in his day was a powerful instrument in promoting the
Reformation, and St. Paul's Cross became a centre whence
Protestant light streamed in all directions, as the old man
eloquent might there be seen from time to time ascending the stairs, with a Bible in his hand. Justification by
faith formed a favourite topic with this homely orator ;
evidently it was welcomed by a sympathetic congregaWorks, Parker Society edit., p. 368.
See Brief Declaration of the Lord's Sujper, pp.
Society edit.
1
1

10, 11,

Parker

Latimer.

A.D. 1518-1560.]

431

tion. Abjuring the idea of salvation by works, or by sacraments, or by any kind of priestly mediation, he urged
men to believe in Christ as the Justifier of the guilty.
And as with Luther, so with Latimer, faith, rather than
t,he forensic idea of justification, is the master theme,
though the one appears in such manner that in it the
other became necessarily involved.1 " If any of you
will ask now, How shall I come by my salvation? how
shall I get everlasting life ? I answer, If you believe
with an unfeigned heart that Jesus Christ the Son of
God came into the world and took upon Him our flesh
of the Virgin Mary, and suffered under Pontius Pilate
the most painful death and passion on the cross. He
was a Lamb undefiled, and therefore suffered not for
His own sake, but for our sake; and with all His suffering hath taken away all our sins and wickedness, and hath
made us, which were the children of the devil, the children of God; fulfilling the law for us to the uttermost,
givihg us freely as a gift His fulfilling to be ours, so that
we are now fulfillers of the law by His fulfilling, so that
the law may not condemn us, for He hath fulfilled it, that
we, believing in Him, are fulfillers of the law, and just
before the face of God." This is a specimen of the popular
and by no means scholastic theology of this renowned
preacher. Latimer does not in his sermons, so far as we
can find, insist upon baptismal regeneration. He says,
"baptism is a thing of great weight ; but to be baptized,
and not keep God's commandments, is worse than
heathenism." 2 Again, " regeneration cometh by hearing
and believing." 3 Latimer was less of a theologian than
a popular preacher, and though unlike Chrysostom in
1

the cast of his eloquence, he, Hke the Greek Father,
reflects in his sermons a picture of his age; and as we
read his discourses we behold the manners and customs
of our ancestors in the reigns of Henry VIII. and
Edward VI.
But good humour, sparkling wit, and
strong English common sense are the distinctive features
of Latimer's sermons, which are much more worth
reading than the works of Ridley or Cranmer.
THOMAS CRANMER (A.D. 1489-1556), Archbishop
of Canterbury-originally a master of canon law more
than either a biblical scholar or a scientific divine, and
brought into public notice by his advocacy of the cause
of Henry VIII. against the Papal court in the matter of
the royal divorce-was not a man of much original wit,
or independence of character; yet, from position, learning, and, with all his inconsistencies, sincere piety, he
could not but possess a large amount of influence on the
opinions of others. That influence must be sought not
so much in any work which appeared in his own name,
as in publications issued by authority at an early stage
of the Reformation.
The first of these contains The Articles about Relz"gz"on
set out by the Convocation, and published by the Kings
authority in the year 1536. Herethedoctrine of justification by faith may be seen emerging from amidst cloudy
articles on the sacrament of penance, and on "laudable
ceremonies used in the Church "-first of images, then of
praying to saints, next of rites and vestments, finally of
purgatory. These articles are signed by Cranmer and
other bishops, and members of Convocation. 1
The Institution of a Clzristian Man, 1537, contains,
besides a great part of the former publication, large addi1

Formularies of Faith.

Oxford, edited by Bishop Lloyd.

A.D. 1518-,-J 560.]

Cranmer.

433

tions on the Creed and the Ten Commandments. In the
fourth part there is introduced a note on the Article of
Justification, in which contrition and charity are united
with faith, whilst the merits of Christ's blood and passion
are declared to be " the only sufficient and worthy causes
thereof." 1
A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, I 543, is the same as the former, with additional
articles on the subject of free-will and good works.
Collyer remarks that in some points of controversy it
" drives further into the doctrines of the Roman Communion." " It is probable that Gardiner (Bishop of Winchester) had greater influence in the preparation of this
work than in either of the former." 2 The note on the
Institutes on Justification is here considerably expanded,
and we are struck with the fact that it follows the more
evangelical view found in the best mediceval writers,
ascribing justification to Divine grace, yet speaking of it
as conferred in baptism ; and of repentance, hope, and
charity as joined together in the obtaining of it. 3 The
note on the Article of Free Will cites Augustine, and is
tinged with his spirit. The hands of Gardiner and of
Heath are no doubt to be traced in this composition ;
yet Cranmer appears on the whole to have sanctioned it,
though not in every particular. 4 The Protestant doctrine
does not wholly disappear, but it is found in a wavering
position, and is seen through a clouded atmosphere.
The first book of Homilies, twelve in number, I 547,
contains the well-known ones on Sal11ation, on Faith,
and on Works. It is clearly proved that Cranmer is the
1 Formularies of Faz'th, p. 209.
3 Ibz'd. p. 368.
Ibid. pref., p. viii.
' Remains of Cranmer, edited by Jenkins, vol. I. p. xxxviii.
2

FF

434

Reformed Theology.

[PART V,

author of these, as they correspond with a MS. in his
handwriting entitled, Notes on 7ustijication, with Authorities from Scripture, t/ze Fathers, and the Schoolmen. 1
In these notes he remarks, "When St. Paul said, ' We
be justified freely by faith without works,' he meant of
all manner of works of the law, as well of the ten commandments as of ceremonials and j udicials. St. James
meant of justification in another sense when he said, 'A
man is justified by works, and not by faith only.' For
he spake of such a justification which is a declaration,
continuation, and increase of that justification which St.
Paul spake of before." "We do by faith transcribe the
whole glory of our justification to the merits of Christ
only." 2 The particular Homilies just referred to are an
expansion of these cardinal ideas of the Reformation.
The Short Instruction into Christian Religion, I 548,
the year after the accession of Edward Vl., manifests a
decided advance in Protestant doctrine. Gardiner and
others no longer checked Cranmer's reformatory tendencies, and he now availed himself of a German catechism,
translated into Latin by Justus Jonas, and bearing the
impress of Lutheran theology. The Short Instruction
is in substance taken from this catechism ; and the doctrine of justification is that of the Saxon Reformer.
Justification is clearly distinguished from sanctification,
the latter receiving distinct treatment. 3
The Articles of Religion (A.D. I 553) are forty-two in
number. They commence with the orthodox doctrine of
the Trinity and incarnation, and then affirm that Holy
Scrpture is sufficient to salvation. There is no cata1

logue of Scripture books. The three creeds are adopted.
The doctrine of original sin is Antipelagian, without
adopting Augustinian peculiarities. The tenth Article
relates to Divine grace, maintaining its force and efficacy,
yet not so as to destroy free will ; respecting justification
reference is made to the Homily on the subject; works
done before justification are pronounced to be not pleasant
toÂˇGod, forasmuch as they spring not from faith in Christ.
The Article on Predestination has an Augustinian tinge.
Of the whole it is remarked by one author," They are
generally admitted to be a compilation, and the Confession of Augsburg is usually mentioned as their chief
source." 1 Another observes," The Archbishop of Canterbury was, I think, indebted to the Archbishop of Cologne.
In that prelate's valuable formulary may be seen the
ground-work of the Articles." 2 They are to be considered
as expressing the views of Cranmer at the time. And no
doubt in them Ridley and Latimer concurred. 3
There can be no doubt that foreign Reformers exercised a considerable influence on the English Reformation ; Bucer, it will be remembered, not only came over
to this country, but wrote one of his books, De Regno
Christi, in Lambeth Palace, and in I 549 was appointed
a professor of theology in the University of Cambridge.
Peter Martyr also resided for a time in England, and in
the same year became Professor of Divinity at Oxford.
There he held a disputation on the Eucharist; and in
1

Remains of Cranmer, by Jen kins, vol. I. p. cviii.
Hook's Lives of the Archbishops, ' Cranmer,' p. 289. On the
whole of what we have said of Cranmer's opinions, see pp. 178,212
of the same volume.
3 We have not touched upon the Book of Common Prayer, as
that relates mainly to worship.
2

FF 2

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

the account of it given byhimself, he denied the Lutheran
doctrine of Christ's corporeal ubiquity, and said, "The
body of Christ was present to us by faith, and that we
are incorporated into Him by communication." " That
which He especially endeavoured to assert was, that
they united not the body and blood of Christ carnally
with the bread and wine by any corporeal presence." 1
The names of Bucer and Peter Martyr are conspicuous in the accounts of other discussions amongst the
English Reformers between 1550 and 1552, whilst
Edward VI. sat on the throne and Cranmer filled the
archiepiscopal chair of Canterbury. Upon the death of
the boy-king the Italian divine, after much difficulty,
left our shores and proceeded to Strasburg; ultimately
he took up his abode at Zurich. Then after the accession of Elizabeth he corresponded with English divines,
especially Bishop Jewel; but in a letter dated November
1560,2 the latter alludes to unfavourable reports he had
heard respecting his friend, which it is conjectured had
reference to his intimacy with Ochino. However, some
overtures were made to him to return to England, which
came to nothing; and it is not likely that Archbishop
Parker, who belonged to a different theological school,
would have made Peter Martyr an adviser, as Cranmer
had done. In connection with the effect of foreign
theology upon the opinions of English Protestants,
controversies respecting the doctrine of the Eucharist
should be especially kept in mind ; nor should the fact be
passed over that Helvetic Confessions on the subject
varied, and that attempts were made to reconcile the
Swiss and the Germans. This was the case at Basle in
Strype's Cranmer, vol. I. p. 288, Oxford edit.
â&#x20AC;˘ Zurich Letters. First Series, p. 91.

1

A.D.

1518-1560.]

Parker.

437

1534; and the changes and compromises which thus .
took place could not fail to make some impression on
our own theologians, who were in frequent communication
with their brethren on the Continent.
Two prelates under Elizabeth, not to mention others,
were theologians of note. MATTHEW PARKER (A.D. I 5041575), Archbishop of Canterbury, was active and very
influential in the settlement of the Church of England
after the death of Queen Mary.Âˇ Not as a writer, but as
a ruler, did he exercise influence, his chief publications
being of an antiquarian description ; and in this respect
he was more of an editor than an author. About the
stamp of his theology, however, there can be no doubt.
His turn of mind was different from that of Luther, from
that of Zwingli, from that of Calvin. He also differed
from his Protestant predecessor in the see of Canterbury. He was acquainted with the writings of foreign
Reformers, and was affected by them ; but he was not
prepared to break with antiquity in the way they were
disposed to do. He had great reverence for the early
Fathers and Councils ; and though he regarded Scripture as the arbiter of controversy, he .interpreted its
decisions in the light of patristic teaching. He thought
more of Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome than of
Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, and preferred the rule,
quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, to the decisions of either Trent on the one hand, or Augsburg on
the other. He was unquestionably" the great conservative spirit of the English Reformation," and prevented
the work from being carried out to the extent desired
by many divines of learning and piety;
The impress of his mind is seen in the Articles of
1559, 1563, and 1571. The Articles on the sufficiency

Reformed Theology.

[PART V,

of Scripture, original sin, free will, works before justification, works of supererogation, and predestination
remain substantially the same as in the Articles of
1553. The fifth Article, on the procession of the
Holy S2irit, is a new one, bringing the reformed branch
of the English Church into accordance, in this respect,
with the old Western one. The Article on justification is enlarged; the words, "We are accounted
righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not our own works
and deservings," being prefixed to the former brief mention of the Homily on the subject. Certainly the reformed
doctrine does not appear in a paler light than it did
before ; but there is no further approximation made to
Helvetic Confessions, and Calvinism does not seem to
have produced any new modification. The number of
the Articles is reduced from forty-two to thirty-nine, and
several alterations, more or less important, are introduced.
JOHN JEWEL (A.D. I 522-157I), Bishop of Salisbury,
at first leaned to the side of Puritanism ; but he afterwards made himself obnoxious to its advocates, and pursued a course more accordant with what is commonly
calle.d Anglo-Catholicism, though he retained, as did
other divines not identified with the Puritan party, sentiments on predestination and kindred points very different
from those upheld by the Anglo-Catholics of the next
century. In fact, the current theology of Elizabeth's
reign was Augustinian. Jewel's great theological work
was his Apology for the Reformation. Hallam remarks,
"This short book is written with spirit; the style is
terse, the arguments pointed, the authorities much to the
purpose, so that its effects are not surprising; " 1 but it
1

Introd. to Lit., vol.

II.

p. II8.

A.D. 1518-1560.)

Yewel.

439

bears little upon dogmatic controversy beyond that
which relates to the pretensions of Rome. Those pretensions were of a high sacerdotal and sacramental
character, and included, of course, the pre-eminence and
supremacy of the so-called successors of St. Peter. Such
pretensions, if they could be supported, were fatal to the
Church of England, and it was to defend it that Jewel
wrote his Apology. Jewel, as just stated, had been Calvinistic in doctrine, whilst inclined to Puritanism in practice ;
but before he became a bishop, though there is no reason
to suppose he altered in reference to the former, he
certainly must have changed as it regards the latter.
Perhaps things may be found in his Apology which Parker
and other Churchmen of the same stamp would not
approve; but Jewel appears throughout as a bold and
able champion of the Reformation settlement under
Queen Elizabeth, and Parker himself, in a prefatory
epistle to Jewel's work, asserts some share in the authorship. Foreign versions of it appeared shortly after its
publication. It could be read in Italian, French, Spanish,
German, Dutch, and Greek. Jewel's connection with the
Protestants abroad would naturally give them an interest
in the circulation of his volume; but far beyond the range
of their society and influence it seems to have made its
way, and this fact is the more remarkable, as the treatise
vindicated a national Church different from any existing
on the continent.
Jewel's sermon at St. Paul's Cross in I 560, which preceded the Apology, contained a challenge, somewhat after
the old scholastic fashion, br rather resembling the
declaration of the Theses by Luther at Wittenberg. Items
relating to the mass, to the Bishop of Rome, and to images,
are introduced; and the preacher declared he was ready

440

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

to renounce his opinions if his adversaries could convict
him of error out of the Scriptures, the old doctors,
and the Councils of the Church. The appeal seemed
to involve a dogmatic principle, which lay at the basis
of the whole theological and ecclesiastical system of
the Anglo-Catholic Reformers, namely, the authority of
Fathers and early Councils in deciding controversy as to
the meaning of Scripture. Jewel did not merely maintain, as a matter of fact, that his opinions were in harmony with the early Church, as well as with Scripture,
but he pledged himself to renounce his belief if it could
be proved contrary to primitive teaching.
In opposition to the Anglo-Catholic, there existed a
Âˇ strong Puritan party, including such eminent men as
MILES COVERDALE (A.D. 1485 or 7-1567), who had been
Bishop of Exeter in Edward's reign ; THOMAS SAMPSON
(A.D. 1517-1589), Dean of Christchurch; LAWRENCE
HUMPHREY (A.D. 1527-1590), President of Magdalen
College, Oxford; and JOHN FOXE (A.D. 1517-1587),the
Martyrologist. By their zeal, piety, and learning they
gave no small weight and influence to their cause; and
even G RINDAL (A.D. 15I9-r58 3), Arch bishop of Canterbury, PILKINGTON (A.D. 1520-1575), Bishop of Durham,
and HORN of Winchester (bishop A.D. I 560-r 580) looked
with favour on the Puritan party, and were deeply imbued
with its Calvinistic theology. Those who had been abroad,
and mixed with Swiss Reformers, had imbibed somewhat
the spirit of Zwingli, and longed for some changes in the
Church of England which neither Archbishop Parker nor
Queen Elizabeth could be brought to approve. Articles
were proposed in 1559 embodying the views of such
divines, which, though in accordance with the formulary of
I 552, are fuller on the subject of predestination, whilst that

A.D. 1518-1560.J Discussions in England.

441

on justification is entirely new; but in this, as in other
respects, they found no favour with Parker and those
who sympathized with him.1
Throughout the progress of the English Reformation
the subject of predestination occupied the thoughts of
our countrymen. In the reign of Henry VIII., even
the Roman Catholic Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester,
went so far as to say, "The true teaching of Christ's
Church abhorreth necessity, and yet worshippeth for
most certain truths, God's providence, election, and predestination, whereby we be taught that God is author of
all our health, wealth, and salvation ; the circumstance of
which working in God, in His election and predestination,
although it be as impossible for man's wit to frame with
(i. e. make consistent with) our choice and free will, as to
devise how a camel should pass .through the eye of a
needle, without making the needle's eye bigger or the
camel less ; yet that which is impossible for man is not
impossible for God." 2 The controversy penetrated the
prison of the martyrs : Bradford prepared a statement on
the subject, which he sent to Cranmer, Ridley, and
Latimer, then at Oxford awaiting their fiery doom ; and
it was on that occasion that Ridley made the cautious
confession which has been quoted in a former page of
this volume. 3 The agitation does not seem to have been
between a simple affirmation and a simple denial of the
doctrine, but as to the modes of expression, or rather the
length to which the theologian should go in affirming
the principle. With this was connected a contention as
1 See Strype's Annals, vol. r. p. 172.
Hardwick's Reformation,
p. 247.
2 Gardiner's Declaration against George Joye, quoted in HardÂˇ
3
wick's Reformation, p. 248.
See p. 430.

442

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

to whether it should form a topic of public discourse.
Archbishop Parker charged a clergyman not to preach
controversial sermons on the Divine counsels ; this
brought on him the rebuke of zealous upholders of
Calvinism, who argued that predestination, as "the only
doctrine of salvation," ought to be preached in all places
and before all men.1
There certainly was a party of theologians at the time
who not only refused to preach, but also refused to
believe, after the manner of certain other Protestant
brethren, and consequently were called "Freewillers,
Pelagians, Papists, Anabaptists, and the like." A minister
of the name of Talbot, Incumbent of St. Mary Magdalen,
Milk Street, London, came forward as the mouthpiece of
these individuals, the number of whom cannot be ascertained. In the name of many both of the clergy and
laity of the realm, a petition came before Parliament
near the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, exhibited
by "the aforesaid Talbot," as we learn from Strype. 2
The persons accused, it was said in the document, "held,
contrary to a great number of their brethren, the Protestants, that God's holy predestination is no manner of
occasion, or cause at all, in any wise, of the wickedness,
iniquity, or sin" of mankind. They argued that if God
should predestinate evil He would be the cause of evil ;
that He doth foreknow and predestinate all good, and
doth only foreknow, and not predestinate, any evil. They
contended that they were charged with Pelagianism,
whereas, according to their statement, they held "no such
thing as they were burdened withal." It was prayed
1 Haweis' Sketches of the Reformation, quoted by Hardwick,
p. 248.
2 Annals, vol. r. p. 494, Oxford edit.

A.D. 1518-1560.]

Controversies on Predestination.

443

that they might be relieved from the odium cast upon
them, that they might be free from all penalties incurred
by "the aforesaid errors and sects," that controversy
respecting predestination should be carried on in writing,
and that " it should be lawful for both parties freely to put
in print their opinions." What the petitioners acknowledge with respect to the doctrine of predestination is
almost identical with what Aquinas, and other orthodox
choolmen, taught, and also with what was taught by
moderate divines following in the rearof Calvin; but surely
such a view of predestination could not have laid them open
to the charge of Pelagianism. Either they went further
in that direction than they were disposed to acknowledge ;
or they had come into collision with some high predestinarian dogmatists, who adopted views such as those of
Gottschalk and Bradwardine, and who accused of heresy
any who could not keep up to them in their own chosen
path. There can be no doubt that amongst those who
called themselves Reformers there were diversities of
sentiment on the subject of Divine decrees, some being
"high " and some being "low ; " and it is very likely that
one class misapprehended what was professed by another. The dispute in England at the time, so far as we
can see, indicates only the mutual antagonism of certain
advocates of Protestantism, without throwing any light
upon the scientific treatment of the doctrine in question.
None of the English Reformers, whether of the AngloCatholic or the Puritan school, can be compared with
Luther in boldness, or with Zwingli in originality, or with
Melancthon in theological learning. Nor did doctrinal
discussions take the same form here as they did abroad.
They turned chiefly on the claims of the Papacy, and
the dogmas of Rome as to Church authority, tradition~

444

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

transubstantiation, purgatory, penance, and absolution.
English divinity was more practical than metaphysical ;
and though the fathers of our Reformation maintained
the doctrine of justification by faith, they did not treat it
in the same subtle fashion as was adopted in Germany
and Switzerland, nor did they disagree amongst themselves about delicate shades of meaning ; neither were
they so independent in their studies and conclusions as
were their neighbours abroad. They produced little effect
on the Continent; the Continent produced much effect on
them. Luther and Calvin, as already noticed, exerted a
powerful formative influence over Protestant Churchmen
under Henry and Edward. Luther's writings and the
visits of Continental divines did much to shape individual
opinion, and even directly to fashion the formularies of the
Church. Zwingli perhaps made less impression on England than did other Continental Reformers ; but on the
Genevan exiles, who returned home after the death of
Queen Mary, and through the Institutes, which became
an almost universally adopted text-book amongst Protestant divines, the great John Calvin made an ineffaceable
mark upon English theology.
Âˇ
There are two or three things which forcibly strike
us as we bring our rapid review to a close, and they
apply to religious thought abroad as well as at home down
to the middle of the sixteenth century. What a contrast is presented in point of language when we place
the new by the side of the old literature! The old, with
few exceptions, is written in medi<l!val Latin. Through
what was deemed the tongue of the learned, divines
spoke to their fellow-men all over the educated world.
Persons not familiar with the speech of ancient Rome
_were supposed to lie outside the circle of theological

A.D. T518-1560.]

Reflections.

445

culture, at least in any scientific form, and to be
accessible only through simpler methods of thought and
expression. But whilst the Reformers, like their predecessors, were still at home in the use of Latin, and could
write in a purer and more scholarly style, they largely
employed their own vernacular, and addressed their
countrymen on sacred topics in a way never dreamed
of by the media!val schoolmen.
This suggests another point of difference. In the
course of these pages, how much we have had to say of
the scholastic speculations which agitated the Realists
and N ominalists ! These became inextricably entangled
with theological matters. The wearisome dispute penetrated into such questions as the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity, of the fall of man, of Divine grace. But the controversy almost entirely disappears at the Reformation.
Luther was a Nominalist, and he did not altogether forget
Peter Lombard ; but he spoke of N ominalists as a sect
to which "he once belonged," and of Peter Lombard as
one who assigned too small an influenceÂˇ to grace, and
too large an influence to free will. Such authorities
belonged to the past. It was no longer a Âˇquestion what
Aquinas or Duns Scotus said, but what the Bible taught.
The appeal was to the Word of God. Some of the
English Reformers-Ridley, and in some degree Cranmer,
but especially Parker-were anxious to have the Fathers
on their side, and cited passages in abundance out of
patristic literature ; but others of them, though revering
Augustine and Bernard, were most at home in quoting
Scripture as the final arbiter of religious controversy.
Nor did any of them care much for philosophy, either
physical or metaphysical: logical formularies still retained
a hold on their habits of argumentation ; but Platonism,

Reformed Theology.

[PART V.

pure or modified, seems to have retired out of their sight ;
they did not interest themselves in Alexandrian opinions.
John Erigena and the mystics had no charm for them.
Luther, indeed, admired Tauler and the Theologia Germanica; but the mystical element, natural to the German,
had little place in the mind of Englishmen.
Finally, this is worthy of notice, that with all the
agitation of thought in England and elsewhere, scepticism
made but little advance. "Protestantism was a form of
free thought ; but only in the sense of a return from
human authority to that of Scripture. It was equally a
reliance on an historic religion, equally an appeal to the
immemorial doctrines of the Church with Roman Catholicism; but it conceived that the New Testament itself
contained a truer source than tradition for ascertaining
the apostolic declaration of it." 1
1 Farrar's Critical Hist. of Free Thought, Bampton Lecture,
p. 139.

447

CONCLUSION.
A. D. 30-1560.

Theology might be said to take a fresh
start in the sixteenth century, under new circumstances, new conditions, new experiences, new prospects.
How different in these respects does it appear at that
time from what it did either immediately after the
apostolic age, or in the midst of the mediceval period.
r. At first it had to face the religious ideas of Judaism
not as they would have been, if simply derived from the
Law and the Prophets, but as they actually were, full of
traditions and prejudices, which had corrupted the simplicity of the Old Testament dispensation. And with
these was blended a bitter antipathy to the Nazarene and
His followers, derived from a generation passed away.
Outside this narrow world of thought appears anotherthe pagan world, permeated throughout with numerous
theologies and philosophies, all of them roused into deadly
opposition by the authoritative and supreme claims of the
religion of the Cross-a religion to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness. Christian Theology,
from this very circumstance, was for a while thrown
back upon itself; and there it lay in sympathetic minds,
firmly rooting its simple truths in believing hearts. But
at the Reformation this state of things had entirely passed
away. Theology had no longer to fight with corrupted
Judaism. The mythologies of Europe had vanished,

C

HRISTIAN

Conclusion.

except as memories of them remained in learned books ;
and the old Greek and Oriental schemes of philosophy
-revived, at least the former of them, in the classical
schools of Italy-had undergone considerable transformation, no longer defying the Gospel, as at the beginning.
Through Antenicene and later writings they had percolated and flowed into contemporary Christian literature.
Aristotle and Plato were regarded as friends rather than
foes, and the theology of the Church was freed from the
necessity of wrestling with the ancient antagonism of
heathendom in its intellectual forms. Pagan persecution
was at an end ; pagan idolatry was at an end ; pagan
enmity in other ways was at an end. All this was an
advantage to the interests of Christian Theology. But
on the other hand there arose a great disadvantage. The
Church stood at the distance of nearly fifteen hundred
years from the days of the apostles. Memories of them
and of their teaching continued in written documents,
inestimably precious ; but there had come down with
these a mass of traditionary opinion and custom which,
in many cases, obscured their meaning and perverted
their application. The original oracles were too often
seen, not in their own light true and pure, but by means
of coloured windows within which they had become
inclosed ; whilst a thousand disputes arose because of
the stained medium through which the Divine source of
illumination was contemplated. Questions of interpretation, questions of doctrine, questions of fact, questions
of institute, rose and were canvassed such as had no
place in the primitive age. Yet though such a state of
_ things caused perplexity and created division, there is
this to be said, that instead of that simplicity which
originally existed, akin to the innocence and limited

A.D.

30-1560.]

Conclusion.

449

knowledge of infancy and childhood, there had now been
accumulated in the schoolsÂˇ of Christian learning an
immense stock of erudition ; and with it stores of experience, such as Christians of early centuries never dreamed
of. Child-like want of experimental knowledge accompanies child-like simplicity and innocence. The experience of manhood must be set over against the temptations
and conflicts of manhood. Now the scholars of the
Reformation, if not as to malice children, were certainly
in understanding men. 1 They had all the benefit, and
certainly it was a great benefit, of thoughts and conflicts
in past ages. Many heresies had been separated from
truths. Lines of distinction had been drawn between
fundamental doctrines and the errors which had assailed
them. Athanasian and Augustinian controversies had
done service, in spite of infirmities, defects, and animosities attending the agitation. Perils, and the way which
led to them, had been laid down in theological charts.
Sunken rocks had been indicated, and a mark set over
them. The best men of all denominations in the sixteenth century, in spite of manifold imperfections, had a
larger, a sounder, a more discriminating and intelligent
acquaintance with Christian doctrine than the fathers of
the first three centuries. But there were divisions among
them, and serious collisions of opinion, which is a fact
having a dark side to it. Yet has it another side. Divine
truth is manifold. It presents a variety of aspects to
different minds. It is a mountain to be looked at from
all points of the compass. That which makes it what it
is can be seen only by a number of individuals looking
at it with their own eyes, from their own stand-points.
Innumerable are the angles of vision under which it may
l I Cor. xiv. 20.
GG

450

Conclusion.

be gazed at by attentive, studious observers ; and numerous side views, each valuable, are in this way caught.
They must be put together in order that the truth may
be ascertained and measured in all its proportions and
relations. Only the infinite mind can see truth all
round, and all at once. The finite has to examine it
piece by piece. Various views, and the discussion of
them, form no evil of themselves ; the evil is in a want
of candour and charity, so commonly betrayed in controversy. The quarrels, heart-burnings, and strifes, the
persecutions, and the bitterness displayed by polemics of
the Reformation on different sides, were sad enough and
much to be deplored ; not so the thoughtful searchings,
the careful siftings, the determined separations, with a
condemnation of errors on the one hand, and an elucidation of truth on the other, by which the story of forty
years in the heart of the sixteenth century is so wonderfully distinguished.
2. Changing our point of view, and going no further
back than the twelfth or eleventh century, another and
different contrast appears between the theological world
at that period and what it had become at the crisis of
the Reformation. In the former instance we find the
Western Church pretty well agreed in what was fundamental in doctrine, government, and institution. The
papacy was at the zenith of its power and pride. Hildebrand, in person or in spirit, held supreme sway over all
the ecclesiastical, and most of the civil, dominions of
Europe. In the latter instance it was far otherwise.
The papacy had received a shock which seemed for _a
time to threaten its existence. Whole countries were
shaking off the old yoke, and where it still remained
no little restiveness under its pressure was exhibited,

A.D. 30-1500.]

Conclusion.

45 1

and the weight of it could not press so heavily as once
it had done. The unity of the past had been broken
up. Germany was, to a great extent, Protestantized;
France was divided into Catholic and Reformed; England and Scotland had separated themselves entirely
from the authority of Rome. The principal cantons of
Switzerland had followed the Âˇsame course.
Sweden,
Denmark, Norway had come under the influence of
Lutheranism. Even Italy and Spain were affected by
the teaching of German and Swiss Reformers. Hence
ecclesiastical and theological controversies raged from
north to south, from east to west, creed rose up against
creed, and confession against confession, and divines of
different communions carried on a determined intellectual warfare with one another. Comparing the MS.
folios which issued from the monkish scriptorium, or from
the episcopal cabinet, or from some newly-founded college on the one hand, with the innumerable printed
volumes of all sizes on the other, we feel ourselves passing from an old world into a new one; and the public.
interest taken in theological discussion, promoted by the
pulpit as well as the press, presented. a revolution in
popular activity of mind as great as that which appears
in authorship and in publishing. At the earlier of the
two periods now under review the authority of the Church,
as expressed in pati:istic writings and the decisions of
councils and papal decrees, was accepted in principle
throughout almost the whole of Christendom, whatever
objection might be made to particular parts of the vast
system of doctrine and law. Scarcely anybody disputed
the right of ecclesiastical authority to rule, and the duty
of mankind in general to obey. But at the later period
the right of private judgment was asserted and adopted
GGz

45 2

Conclusion.

in most of the countries of Europe ; and that was necessarily fatal to the existence of the ancient order of things.
Church authority and the right of private judgment were
as opposed to each other as darkness and light ; they
could not co-exist except in a state of deadly warfare.
There was inconsistency enough in the proceedings of
. some Reformed governments in Church and State between
their theory of mental rights and their conduct in reference
to those who exercised them, between the principle of
freedom and the practice of persecution; yet wherever the
principle was conceded, however out of harmony with
practice, it put the country in a condition respecting
theological thought and expression the opposite of what
it had been when the Council of Lateran sat under Innocent III. in I 2 I 5. There were -heretics then, but public
opinion on the whole was on the side of putting them
down by force. Comparatively little revulsion of feeling
was occasioned by the Crusades against the Albigenses,
but such crusades became impossible in the sixteenth
century ; then, instead of them in France, rose Huguenot
soldiers against Roman Catholic troops, and the right
to defend conscientious beliefs was asserted with a
decision, which it was impossible to crush and destroy.
The setting up of this new standard, which drew around
it such a host of valiant and determined supporters,
marked one of the most wonderful revolutions the world
ever saw. It is very true, that throughout the Middle
Ages, as appears in this volume, there existed more of
mental activity than was once supposed, and it was exercised at times by notable men, such as John Erigena
and Peter Abelard to a wide extent, and with immense
force ; but such activity was circumscribed, and the field
for a free use of theological weapons was hedged round

A.D. 30-1560.].

Conclust"on.

453

within fixed limits. Nobody was permitted to break
bounds, scarcely any one thought of it. Few men
dreamed of defying the Pope's spiritual rule, and setting
at nought the opinions of ecclesiastical antiquity. Most
preachers reconciled free action with profound submission in a marvellous way. But after Luther burnt the
Bull at Wittenberg; after he stood up at Worms, and,.
appealing to the Bible, declared," Here I take my stand!
God help me!" time-honoured barriers were throwR
down and trampled in the dust. Limitation of inquiry
really came to an end. The whole region of theological
thought lay open. Fundamental questions were brought
within the range of dispute. From all this it plainly
appears that theology at the Reformation commenced a
course amidst new circumstances, for new objects, and
under entirely new conditions.

INDEX.
**â&#x20AC;˘

Wktre a subject extends tkrougk several pages, tke number of Ike first page
only is given.